2006-11-10

Government Orders
Hon. Lawrence Cannon:  moved that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Income Tax Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the third time and passed. 
Ms. Diane Ablonczy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today we are at third and final reading of Bill C-25. The bill is entitled Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. The bill proposes amendments to the existing act against money laundering and terrorist financing. These amendments will toughen Canada's existing anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing legislation.
We are aware and we applaud the fact that we are more and more a global economy, that all countries interact together to do what they do best in the global marketplace, and that open borders provide these kinds of opportunities for Canadian businesses to thrive internationally.
However, every upside has certain downsides. This kind of openness in commerce, trade and financial transactions around the world also provides criminals with opportunities. Criminals use these opportunities to launder millions of dollars in illegal cash. The intention of criminal and terrorist elements, of course, is to make these proceeds look legitimate, so they can use them without attracting the unwelcome attention of law enforcement agencies. The funds are also increasingly used to fund terrorist activities. We want to put a stop to this.
Criminal activities, I do not have to remind the House, undermine the reputation and integrity of financial institutions. They distort the operation of financial markets and adequate measures must be put in place to deter this kind of activity.
I want to remind all members, although we have spoken about this issue before, that the proposed legislation is extremely important to our country. I want to take a few minutes to explain briefly what money laundering and terrorist financing is, how it operates, and especially how it can affect our Canadian economy.
Money laundering is the process used by criminals to disguise the source of money and assets derived from criminal activity. This kind of criminal activity is very broad. It runs from drug trafficking, prostitution, smuggling, fraud, extortion, corruption, to criminal activity of all kinds. Most of this activity generates large quantities of cash, untraceable cash, but cash nevertheless, that can raise suspicions of law enforcement agencies. Criminals turn to money laundering and they have to use legitimate financial institutions and systems to do this. This can compromise the integrity of these institutions. It can also facilitate corruption in a country. It can destabilize economies. It is a serious threat to any country.
This kind of criminal activity is nothing new. It has been around for a long time in one form or another. However, there has been a change recently. Money laundering has become an increasingly global phenomenon. This is because of technological advances in e-commerce and the global diversification of financial markets. Because of this, criminals now use very sophisticated techniques to carry out these money laundering activities. These techniques can lead to further opportunities to launder illegal profit and obscure the money trail leading back to underlying crime.
Methods for laundering funds vary considerably and are often highly sophisticated and intricate. However, there are generally three basic stages to the process. I mentioned this before to the House, but some members may not have heard it so I will just repeat it quickly. 
First, there is the placement stage. This involves placing the proceeds of crime, usually in small amounts at a time, into the financial system. 
Placement is followed by layering. At this second stage, the dirty money is converted into another form through complex layers of financial transactions that disguise the audit trail and disguise the source and ownership of funds. This, for example, can be by buying and selling stocks or by buying and selling commodities or properties. These are some common vehicles for layering.
Finally, there is the integration stage and in this stage the laundered proceeds are placed back into the economy, hidden under a veil of legitimate business activity.
Terrorist financing has an extra wrinkle to all of this because it can involve funds that have been raised from legitimate sources. Unlike organized crime, terrorists can raise funds through legitimate sources such as personal donations, profits from business, or through charitable organizations. 
Terrorist financing can also come from funds that have been through the money laundering process that I have just described, that is, it could come from criminal sources such as the drug trade, smuggling weapons and other goods, fraud, kidnapping, extortion, all of these criminal activities in addition to legitimate activities.
Terrorists, like criminal organizations, use sophisticated money laundering techniques to evade the attention of authorities. However, to make the money harder to follow, financial transactions associated with terrorist financing tend to be in smaller amounts than in the case with money laundering by criminal organizations. When terrorists raise funds from legitimate sources, members of the House can appreciate that the detection and tracking of those particular funds becomes very difficult.
To move their funds out of our country or another country, terrorists often use informal money transfer systems such as Hawalas. These exist and operate outside of, or parallel to, what we normally think of as traditional banking or financial channels. 
In Canada, in an effort to conceal the final destination of laundered money, FINTRAC is finding that funds suspected of being used for financing terrorist activities are increasingly being moved out of the country through traditional banking centres to countries with major financial hubs.
How big is this money laundering and terrorist financing problem? What are we dealing with? What do we need to be aware of? Because this is hidden activity, it is pretty hard to put an actual dollar figure on it. We do know that this activity involves significant amounts of money. The International Monetary Fund, through its expert sources, has estimated that worldwide the aggregate size of money laundering is between 2% and 5% of the entire global GDP. That is very significant by any standard.
What can we do about it? The bottom line is that criminal and terrorist activity requires money. One of the best ways to put these individuals out of business is to starve them of funds. That is why we are here today with Bill C-25. The bill would improve Canada's ability to act decisively and shut down these criminal operations when they are detected.
We have already taken some steps in this direction. Members will recall that in the recent spring budget there was extra funding for key partners in combating this kind of activity of money laundering and terrorist financing. There is $64 million in additional funding over the next two years for the RCMP, the Department of Justice, the Canada Border Services Agency and FINTRAC. 
Just a reminder for those who are wondering, FINTRAC is Canada's financial intelligence unit. It is an integral part of our country's commitment to fight money laundering and terrorist activity financing. FINTRAC gathers information about financial transactions, analyzes it and if it sees something suspicious alerts our security forces to take further action.
As the finance minister said when he introduced this bill that is before us today, “Canada's new Government will continue to be relentless in its battle against money laundering and terrorism financing”. 
To build on the measures in the budget to increase funding for these kinds of security activities by the RCMP and CSIS, Bill C-25 will help ensure that Canada continues to be a global leader in combating organized crime and terrorist financing.
It will do that by making our financing regime consistent with new standards that were recently adopted by the financial action task force. Members will know that the FATF is an international standard setting body for developing and promoting national and international policies to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.
We are proud of the fact that Canada was a founding member of this organization. I commend the previous government for the leadership that Canada took in this area. 
Canada is committed to implementing the 40 new recommendations of the FATF on money laundering and nine special recommendations on terrorist financing. Canada's response to those revised recommendations have been put into law in the bill we are debating today. 
The bill also responds to the Auditor General. In 2004 the Auditor General made some recommendations about how to strengthen our regime. We want to respond positively to her recommendations. In 2004 there was a Treasury Board evaluation of our regime. Treasury Board made some recommendations which we want to put into place as well.
Recently, the Auditor General appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. The Auditor General has confirmed to the committee, and I would like to let the House know, that this bill in the Auditor General's opinion appears to deal with the key findings in the report from the Auditor General's Office in November 2004.
Not only that, we have recently received a report from the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. The Senate committee undertook an extensive study of this whole area of money laundering and terrorist financing. The report called for a number of tougher measures to deal with these activities. 
Those of us in the House want to thank the Senate committee members for the insights that they have provided on this issue. They are satisfied and pleased I believe, although they will be examining this bill in some detail in the days to come, that their proposed recommendations have been enshrined in this legislation and in related regulations.
The following are the key proposals in this legislation. First, there is something new in the area of information sharing. Right now, FINTRAC shares information with law enforcement and other domestic and international agencies. This bill would enhance that information sharing in ways that were recommended by the Auditor General and also requested by law enforcement agencies.
Specifically, this would enhance the information FINTRAC can disclose to law enforcement and security agencies on suspicious and money laundering terrorist financing. It is not much good for FINTRAC to have this information if it cannot alert those who could actually investigate it further and do something about it.
Second, the bill deals with the registration system. It proposes to create a system to register money service businesses and foreign exchange dealers. Previously, these entities were not registered and, because they also have been conduits for money laundering, they will now be brought into the system.
With a federal registration system in place for individuals and entities engaged in money service businesses of foreign exchange, FINTRAC would act as registrar and would maintain a public list of registered money service businesses and foreign exchange dealers.
Third, the bill deals with enhanced client identification measures. It would include requirements for reporting entities, banks, insurance companies, securities dealers and money services businesses to undertake enhanced monitoring of high risk situations. In other words, we are heightening the level of vigilance in our country. This would include the monitoring of transactions of foreign nationals who hold prominent public positions.
The current legislation only allows for serious criminal penalties if the act is contravened. In order to take a more balanced and gradual approach to compliance, the bill would allow FINTRAC to levy fines to deal with lesser contraventions or inadvertent breaches of the act. It would also provide FINTRAC with the ability to create an administrative and monetary penalty system whereby fines can be applied for non-compliance. This would better help FINTRAC to do its work.
For those who have made inquiries about this, the regulations for this bill would also include other reporting entities, such as gemstone and precious metals dealers they deal with, and compliance measures that are appropriate to legal practitioners. Discussions are underway with the building industry.
Not only the government but the entire House is very serious about winning the battle against money laundering and terrorist financing. I would like to commend all members of the House from all parties for their united determination to get behind these measures. There has been a very good level of cooperation from all parties in bringing the bill forward and that will benefit all Canadians. Canadians should commend all parties for this cooperation. As Mr. Speaker knows, that does not always happen in the House but, on important issues, members of Parliament can act in a united way.
For the first time ever, the House should know that Canada has assumed the presidency of the FATF. We are very pleased about the leadership role we will have in this area. Our presidency of the FATF is another example of our commitment to national and international security, to collaborative solutions to global threats and to meeting the need for international cooperation and international institutions to deal with this area.
The bill would make Canada's overall regime consistent with international standards. It would continue to help us keep one step ahead of those who would abuse our system to fund criminal and international terrorist activities. 
We appreciate the fact that we have all party support for this. I would tell Canadians that they can be reassured that the government, the House of Commons and Canada's Parliament are dealing with this important issue in an expeditious and effective manner.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given the gracious words of my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, not only commending the previous government for introducing FINTRAC but also for praising the unelected Senate for its positive role in this area, I hesitate to ask a question that could in any way be construed to be critical.
However, duty does require me to mention the issue of parliamentary oversight, which, as a consequence of Liberal amendments, supported by the other opposition parties, are now part of the bill, and yet the Conservatives opposed the principle of parliamentary oversight in committee. Once that principle had been passed, we worked together to ensure the appropriate form of parliamentary oversight.
I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary why the government opposed the principle of parliamentary oversight for FINTRAC.
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the government did no such thing. I am sorry that partisanship must always rear its ugly head. All members of Parliament are very concerned about ensuring that the privacy of Canadians and the accountable operation of these kinds of activities are jealously protected.
There was a proposal for oversight that simply was not workable. It would have substantially changed the operations of some of the organizations that do important work on behalf of Canadians in protecting their security. However, the Minister of Finance put a proposal forward for oversight, through the office of the Information Commissioner, a proposal that had also been brought to my attention by the members of the Bloc Québécois. We were able to achieve consensus behind that area of oversight.
As I emphasized, all members of Parliament and certainly the government are very committed to oversight, which is why we introduced the federal accountability act, an act that would broaden, to an unprecedented degree, oversight of all operations of government. 
We are very grateful that there has been consensus behind this important measure in Bill C-25.
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just want to question the parliamentary secretary one step further. 
My recollection of the events was that the opposition introduced the motion and the motion was to the effect that there would be parliamentary oversight. The motion was passed. My hon. colleague asked why the government opposed having parliamentary oversight imposed on a bill that, and pretty well everyone in the chamber would agree, imposes a significant intrusion into the privacy of transactions and affairs of Canadians.
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I am very puzzled by this line of questioning from the Liberals opposite. The motion, to which both of my friends in the Liberal Party referred, had nothing to do with parliamentary oversight. In fact, the motion would have made oversight by SIRC, which is not a parliamentary body. It is a body that was never intended to do this kind of work. It was intended to have very vigorous oversight over the invasive investigative capacity by entities like the RCMP and CSIS, not an information gathering body like FINTRAC. 
The members are well aware that this would have been a serious disruption of SIRC's important work. It would have been inappropriate for SIRC to take on a completely different role in oversight for FINTRAC, which is why the finance minister put forward a more suitable and effective, I might say, method of oversight by Parliament through the Information Commissioner who reports directly to Parliament.
 I do not know why my friends over there are being mischievous but I hope the House realizes that any resistance by the government was not to oversight at all. We certainly want oversight and have put a very strong oversight regime in place with the help of all parties.
What was not appropriate was to make SIRC responsible for that oversight and, at the end of the day, I think we would all agree.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, given that the House had previously agreed there would be one speaker per party on this, I would like to seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The hon. member for Markham—Unionville will only address the House for 10 minutes.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, whether the House has agreed because the members look forward to hearing my colleague or because they have less time to listen to me, either way they have accepted and I thank them all.
We on this side of the House certainly support the bill. Indeed, to a large degree, the bill is based on recommendations by the Department of Finance when we were in government, so we certainly agree with the bill as amended.
It is clear that money laundering and terrorist financing have economic and social costs against which we must remain forever vigilant. It is true that we have to seek out this activity in all corners of the world, because if there are corners that we neglect, that is where the criminals and the terrorist financing people will go.
It is clear as well that this kind of legislation has to be continuously reviewed and updated, because in a sense there is a technological race between the terrorists and the money launderers on the one hand and the government on the other. They, of course, are always trying to be one step ahead of the regulators in terms of the technologies and the techniques they use, so we must be involved in this never-ending racing to be ahead of them. I believe that on the whole the bill does make significant improvements and significant progress to this end, an end which I am sure all of us in this House would share.
I would also like to point out, as the parliamentary secretary did, that we were influenced to a significant extent by the good work in the Senate, led by Senator Grafstein, and its report entitled, “Stemming the Flow of Illicit Money - A Priority for Canada”. It is nice to hear praise from the Conservative Party for the good work of the Senate, so I do thank those members for that, but it is also clear that this report made several excellent recommendations, some but not all of which were included in this bill.
One of the areas where the Senate made a good recommendation, which was not accepted, was that the report urged the government to have precious metal and jewellery dealers report large transactions to FINTRAC. This was not in the original bill. This is an open door. Criminals are not stupid. If the cash is covered but the jewellery or the diamonds are not, they can use diamonds instead of cash. I think this is one of the loopholes that this bill ought to have covered off, but it failed to do so.
Nobody wants to put undue burdens on Canadian businesses, and yes, having to report these transactions to FINTRAC is another burden for the businesses involved, but if these types of businesses are identified by the criminal element as safe places to launder money, then that is where they may choose to go. I do think that this is a significant deficiency.
 Indeed, my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, did propose amendments at committee that would have brought precious metal and jewellery dealers into the legislation. Unfortunately, these amendments were found to be out of order by the chair because they were said to be beyond the scope of the bill. When the bill is updated, I hope that this is one area that will be covered off in future amendments.
There is also the very important issue of privacy and parliamentary oversight. I believe the original bill provided a delicate balance between two good things. On the one hand, the bill has to be tough in its ability to go after money launderers and people involved in terrorist financing. On the other hand, the bill has to protect the privacy rights of Canadians. I believe the original bill had a delicate balance between these two sometimes competing objectives.
The new bill correctly strengthens the enforcement side of this equation. We on this side of the House agreed with those measures, but we also think that in order to retain balance, if we strengthen the enforcement side we should also ask the question of whether the side of privacy or the protection of individual rights should also be strengthened. 
That is why, right from the beginning, our party, and I believe the other opposition parties, sought to bring parliamentary oversight into the equation, parliamentary oversight being absent from the original bill and from the bill put forward by the government. Throughout the committee hearings, the government side did not display an interest in any form of parliamentary oversight. It was satisfied with the status quo.
 Then, at committee, the Liberal side brought in an amendment, based on the work of the Senate committee, to provide oversight by SIRC, but with annual reports to Parliament, and this is the point the parliamentary secretary neglected . This, for the first time, would have brought in the principle of annual parliamentary oversight, which was absent from the previous bill and absent from the government's bill.
 The record will show that four Conservative hands went up to vote against our amendment in terms of whether it was in order. It was only when the opposition together combined to bring forward this amendment that the government accepted the principle of parliamentary oversight.
I repeat the point that I made in my question and comment. The government opposed the principle of parliamentary oversight of FINTRAC. Once we introduced our amendment, we had further discussions and agreed with the government side that its alternative form of parliamentary oversight through the Privacy Commissioner rather than SIRC was acceptable. 
The main reason why I agreed that this was all right and an improvement was that I consulted Senator Grafstein, the person who originally had recommended parliamentary oversight through SIRC. He thought this was a reasonable proposal by the government, so we on this side accepted that proposal, as did the opposition parties.
That does not negate my central point that parliamentary oversight is important for FINTRAC. There is plenty of scope for individual privacy to be put in jeopardy. The government side had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept this principle only after the three opposition parties combined to force the issue.
That having been said, I will say that this side of the House does support the bill. We are certainly the creators of this institution. We believe it is necessary. We believe that it has to be updated continuously. My principal reservations are on the diamonds and the jewellery, which is work still to be done in the future, and the parliamentary oversight that the government was forced to accept is also an important part of this amended bill.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville, has said, we on this side of the House will be supporting the bill. It does improve on the work started by the previous government.
 There are some things that have been learned over the course of the application of FINTRAC over the past number of years and the bill does address some of the concerns and loopholes identified by the Senate in its very able report under the chairmanship of Senator Jerry Grafstein. I want to start with a review of one of those recommendations, particularly with respect to the legal profession.
 When we had witnesses before our committee, Mr. Horst Intscher showed us a chart of the path of the money. Unfortunately, rules prohibit me from showing members this chart, Mr. Speaker, but you would find it incredibly complex and incredibly detailed, following money from one bank account in Kingston. I am sure there are no terrorist or other kinds of suspicious activities going on in Kingston, but it was just a theoretical possibility that there might be. It follows the money from there to other countries, coming back into our country, going off into a country like the United States, then going off to another country, and then ultimately being used for terrorist-like or terrorist activities. Just following the chart was incredibly complex. 
The Senate did a very able report on this legislation and, as I have said, made particular recommendations with respect to the legal profession, which was a bit of a gap in the previous legislation. I think that members on both sides of the House are somewhat satisfied that, with negotiations with the law societies of Canada, we have addressed that gap.
I would like to read for members from the views expressed by the senators:
 --in their view, solicitors should be subject to the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. The Department of Finance told us that it “understands(s) (that the absence of coverage of the legal profession) is a serious gap in (Canada's) regime...Certainly the Auditor General has identified it and reinforced that point. 
I want to commend the government for working on this issue. I know that in our government we were continuing to work on this particular issue, because it does pit this against a fundamental right of Canadians to assume that when they consult with their solicitor, their barrister or their legal representative they have a confidentiality that cannot be breached.
The Department of Justice told the committee that this was a great difficulty and that the imposition on lawyers would “fundamentally violate the right to counsel, solicitor-client privilege or even fundamental justice”. The RCMP commented that “the exclusion of the legal profession poses a significant gap in Canada's regime”. The Canadian General Accountants Association said “the biggest mistake made was...when the lawyers were not included”.
All members of the committee and all sides of the House actually agreed with those observations, I think, and in some measure the government has actually addressed that issue in the bill. What does concern me is taking it from 35,000 feet down to the average lawyer's office, so to speak. I will use my own community in Scarborough as an example.
 As members know, particularly in real estate offices, lawyers flush a lot of money through their trust accounts over the course of a day, particularly over a heavy closing day. There is still some lingering concern. I hope that as this bill gains experience, so to speak, or some precedents, there will be some fleshing out with respect to what constitutes a suspicious transaction.
I do not recollect whether you practised law, Mr. Speaker, but I did. There were times when people would ask me do a particular transaction for them. Frequently, I did not know them, but they could produce identification. 
The newspapers have recently reported stories about solicitors who have been taken in by fraudulent mortgage transactions, and it is a relatively easy thing to do. Let me use Mr. Jones as an example.
 Mr. Jones gets a commitment from a bank. His lawyer innocently does what the bank has requested him to do. The lawyer prepares the documents, searches the title, gets the insurance in order, checks the taxes, et cetera. Mr. Jones then signs the documents and the lawyer advances the funds to him. A few months later Mrs. Smith, who is the real owner of the house, finds out that Mr. Jones has put a mortgage on her property and she now owes a huge amount of money to the bank. This is a relatively easy fraud to perpetrate upon the real estate system. The solicitor is just as much a victim as Mrs. Smith. There really is no way the solicitor can know who Mr. Jones really is.
The regime for the FINTRAC legislation contemplates that the lawyer knows his or her client. Having practised law for 20 years, that in theory sounds pretty good. At 35,000 feet that sounds pretty good. However, for a solicitor, that will be somewhat more difficult. The way I read the legislation, the lawyer will have a liability for the kind of transaction I just described to the House, which is fraud. It is a very important fraud to the person who owns the property, but there is no necessary connection to terrorist activities or money laundering or things of that nature. The Ontario government has had to move against these kinds of transactions.
 I am a bit from Missouri with respect to so-called suspicious transactions. Suspicious transactions will be in the eye of the beholder. Does a law office get into things like profiling? For example, because a person is from a certain area of the world the lawyer should be more suspicious of the transaction that he or she asks the lawyer to do. 
Are we going to get into other kinds of client identification? If an individual cannot produce a birth certificate showing he or she was born in Canada but can produce a resident visa or something of that nature, does this constitute a suspicious issue? Will lawyers be required to know their clients even better? Once the cheque is written by the solicitor pursuant to the completion of the transaction, how will he or she know that money will not be used for terrorist activities? How will a lawyer determine that a transaction is suspicious and needs to be reported?
At 35,000 feet, the legislation sounds like a good idea. Our party, the government and the other opposition parties support it. However, I am a little skeptical about how a solicitor in Scarborough, for example, can sufficiently protect himself or herself against the implications of this kind of transaction. How will the lawyer determine whether an individual or a transaction is suspicious? How will the lawyer determine whether the individual has provided real identification that will enable the lawyer to do a proper reporting?
I work on the assumption that if people are admitted to the bar, they are officers of the court and they have a fiduciary duty to not only their clients but a larger duty to society as well. I also work on the presumption that lawyers are not complicit in these kinds of transactions.
Members of the Liberal Party support the legislation. We look forward to the review of it by our Senate colleagues. We thank them for their work, under the chairmanship of Senator Jerry Grafstein, and appreciate any insights they may have with respect to any parts of the bill.
Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak a second time about the bill that is before us today, which deals with money laundering and financing terrorist activities. The Bloc Québécois will support this bill, as it has indicated and as it has always supported sound bills.
The Bloc Québécois has a history of fighting against crime. Hon. members will recall the work done in 1993 by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot with regard to people who were growing marijuana in fields in Saint-Hyacinthe and farmers throughout Quebec. It was a tough battle, which the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot led very energetically.
We have also talked about the reversal of the burden of proof with respect to proceeds of crime. This is a great victory by the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois has also helped toughen anti-gang legislation, making it easier for police to fight organized crime gangs. Our commitment to fighting crime extends to money laundering and international terrorism. That is why the Bloc will support this bill.
When I spoke for the first time about this bill in this House, I said that I would be taking a close look at privacy issues. I am fairly happy with what this bill does. We had discussions earlier in this House, and we also had discussions in committee about how we can fight effectively against crime and terrorist financing and yet protect people's privacy. I want to personally make sure that the bill does not have any loopholes. I am very happy that all the parties have reached agreement on this.
 I would like to explain how FINTRAC works. This agency collects financial data on transactions in Canada and abroad and will continue to do so. Under this bill, more data will be collected and more companies will be required to disclose information to FINTRAC so that it can do its job properly.
To understand how this works, hon. members need to know that FINTRAC does not conduct investigations. It is not an investigating body, but an agency that gathers and analyzes information and passes it on to the proper authorities. 
With respect to collecting information, the legislation provides that banks and insurance companies, as well as other financial institutions and organizations, must report a certain number of transactions to FINTRAC. Obviously, we are talking about large transactions that involve a lot of money. Any transaction that appears odd or suspicious must be reported and added to the FINTRAC database. 
Then the information is analyzed. Analysts look for connections that suggest some kind of fraud has been committed. They use two techniques to do this. The first is searching the data for patterns in the volume of financial transactions, which makes it possible to spot activities typical of people attempting to launder money or finance terrorist activities. Clearly, it makes sense to centralize this information.
It makes sense because a single transaction might appear quite ordinary, but finding connections among series of transactions can alert analysts to suspect illegal activity. 
The first way to detect illegal activity is to analyze the data collected in order to identify typical patterns.
The second is voluntary disclosure by entities, police forces or security forces that suspect illegal activity. Voluntary disclosure can happen anytime. 
I will conclude my remarks after question period. 
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber. He will have 14 minutes to continue his speech when the debate on this subject resumes after oral question period.

Statements by Members
It is the SoldierMr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, across Canada we join in thanks to our veterans. From Vimy Ridge to Passchendaele, to Sicily, Juno Beach, the battle for Hill 355, the efforts in Kandahar and all the countless acts of bravery in battle that are too numerous to list, I say thank you. It is because of their strength, their courage, their sacrifices that we enjoy our freedoms, our democracy and our way of life.
A couple of years ago, I was given a poem that I would like to share with this Parliament. While we politicians have a fault of taking credit for too much, this poem serves to remind us of who truly deserves praise.
  It is the Soldier   It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, not the lawyer,  who has given us the right to a fair trial. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.  
On Remembrance Day and every day, let us never forget who gave themselves so we may always be free.
Vicki GabereauMr. Blair Wilson (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters is inducting Vicki Gabereau into the Broadcast Hall of Fame.
Vicki is one of my constituents and a dear friend. She has had a remarkable career in media. She hosted CBC Radio's Variety Tonight  for 12 years and her own TV show for eight years. She is known across Canada for her sharp intellect, her very quick wit and genuine interest in people.
Vicki has contributed immensely to her industry and to our community. I am proud to congratulate her on her achievement.
Seniors Safety WeekMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is nice to go walking in the winter and enjoy the festive decorations. However, ice and accumulations of snow can be dangerous. Simple rules—such as removing ice and snow, spreading sand, having good anti-slip shoes, and using a cane—can prevent a fall.
Outdoor safety in the winter is the theme of the 18th Seniors Safety Week. A bad fall on the ice can have serious long-term consequences. It can result in chronic pain and debilitating injuries that can lead to loss of independence, isolation and inactivity.
Seniors are the most susceptible to being admitted to hospital with injuries requiring longer stays after a fall on the ice.
More than a third of people hospitalized are between 60 and 79. Their hospital stay on average is 7.6 days, and those 80 and over stay an average of 14.5 days. The safety of our seniors is important if we want them to stay active. They have much to contribute to our society. I wish all seniors a good winter. Be careful.
Canadian ForcesMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this Remembrance Day is especially poignant because it has hit home to every community in this country that we are no longer simply remembering the past, but praying for those who are right now serving in combat missions.
That is why I am so proud of the efforts of the students at Joseph H. Kennedy Public School in Matheson, who are holding a walk today to support Corporal MacLeod, who is serving in Kandahar. I know the MacLeod family. I have spoken with many families in my region who have young people serving over there.
It is a heavy responsibility we have in this House of Commons. We are the ones to debate the wisdom of putting those young people in harm's way. We are the ones who have to make the decision to send them there, but it is all our responsibility, every single Canadian, to let those young people know that when they come home, they will have the complete support of every Canadian and the full support of the Government of Canada to protect them and ensure they have the proper pensions.
I would like to salute the children for the work that they are doing and the message that they are sending to Corporal MacLeod and other people from my riding.
The Atlas of CanadaMr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this year The Atlas of Canada is celebrating 100 years of map making.
The settlement of the west was the theme when the atlas was first published in 1906, and The Atlas of Canada has changed with the times with digital cartography, satellite images and now there is The Atlas of Canada website. 
Natural Resources Canada offers the most comprehensive collection of maps about Canada available anywhere on the net. The Royal Canadian Geographical Society was so impressed that it has given these innovative map makers its gold medal. This award is special recognition for all the men and women who have worked on The Atlas of Canada. 
Our map makers have charted Canada's ever-changing landscape in six editions of this national atlas since 1906, a feat few other countries have matched.
Congratulations to the people of the Earth Observation and GeoSolutions Division of Natural Resources Canada for winning the gold medal and for their continuing contribution to our mapping heritage. I urge people to go to atlas.nrcan.gc.ca tonight and show their kids this great website.
Remembrance DayHon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Remembrance Day Canadians join together as a nation to honour the service and sacrifice of our veterans who served our country in two world wars, in Korea, in peacekeeping missions around the world and in Afghanistan.
I want to pay special tribute to my late father who served in the Argyle and Southern Highlanders who landed on the beaches of Normandy in 1944. He suffered severe shrapnel wounds in his legs, lost his hearing in one ear and was briefly buried alive when the tank he was riding on was hit.
It is because of the actions of my father and men and women who have served and continue to serve in our armed forces that we enjoy the freedoms we have today. We can never repay the debt we owe them.
On November 11 we stand to remember the sacrifices and give thanks to the legacy of peace that all Canadians enjoy.
Make Poverty HistoryMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute today to the “Just” Youth Group at St. Joseph's Catholic Secondary School in Cornwall in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.
Recently, these impressive young citizens encouraged their fellow students and staff at St. Joe's to join the Make Poverty History campaign, a coalition of charities, religious groups, trade unions and others working to increase awareness of the need to fight poverty.
The St. Joe's “Just” Youth Group presented me with a large white banner signed by over 200 members of their school community, bearing the simple yet important message, “make poverty history”.
The caring and initiative displayed by these young citizens of my riding makes me very proud. These students give us all reason to be optimistic about the future of our Canadian and global society. 
To all members of the “Just” Youth Group, the staff and the students of St. Joe's and everyone who signed their make poverty history banner, I salute them. Together we can make a difference.
Outaouais Culture AwardsMr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate an author and publisher in my riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, Pierre Bernier, who received two awards at the Culturiades de l'Outaouais gala on October 25, in Gatineau.
He received two Grands prix d'excellence at the 4th Jeu de la francophonie. He won the first award of excellence in the cultural organizations category for his publishing house, Écrits des Hautes-Terres, which is located in the RCM of Papineau. That award also earned him $2,500 for all his achievements. He received another award as author and publisher in the artists category, which earned him another $2,500 for his works.
The arts communities of Petite-Nation and Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel are among the most significant in Quebec in terms of the number of artists in all areas of culture and the strength and quality of their work.
As a winner at the Culturiades de l'Outaouais, Mr. Bernier is a worthy representative of these communities. I would like to take this opportunity to offer him my congratulations.
Remembrance DayMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this November 11 with all its connotations of courage and loss will be especially poignant when we think about our sons and daughters in Afghanistan and other areas of conflict. 
They are carrying out our proud military tradition. They are placing themselves at risk today so that we and others around the world can have a better future. In addition to building schools, roads and hospitals for the Afghan people, they are serving and protecting.
I would like to call upon all Canadians to remember our Canadian Forces, along with our veterans, as we commemorate Veterans' Week. Canada's contribution to the well-being, peace and stability of our complex world is well established.
Let us also mourn with the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice and support them wherever they are and however we can. At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.
Ms. Tina Keeper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with deep gratitude that I stand in the chamber today to honour our country's greatest men and women during Veterans' Week and on the eve of Remembrance Day.
Tomorrow, November 11, Canadians across the country will unite to remember the sacrifices of Canadians and their families during the first and second world wars, the Korean war and indeed all missions where Canadian soldiers have fallen.
In my riding of Churchill ceremonies will be held throughout the region to commemorate this day, at Legions in Thompson, Churchill, Cranberry Portage, Flin Flon, Gillam, Leaf Rapids, Lynn Lake, Snow Lake and The Pas.
In my home community of Norway House Cree Nation a ceremony will be held to honour aboriginal veterans who have fought in every major battle on behalf of Canada.
As the daughter and granddaughter of veterans, I express my unconditional gratitude for the courageous contributions of all our veterans.
Status of WomenMrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week I put forward a motion to the Standing Committee on the Status Women that asked them to:
 --recognize that all women are equal in Canada under the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the government strive to address the barriers that would prevent the full participation of women in Canadian society-- 
The Conservative government members voted for this motion, but shockingly, all opposition members voted against it.
While the opposition prefers to depict all women as helpless, we recognize the diversity among women, but we also recognize that there are some barriers to address. That is why Canada's new government is focusing on programs and services that will actually make a real difference in the lives of women.
We have increased funding for on reserve family violence shelters. We have implemented important skills training programs for women and we are helping victims of human trafficking.
After 13 years of empty rhetoric from the Liberals, Canadians deserve a government that is taking concrete measures that will truly help women in their communities.
Federal Accountability ActMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the undemocratic and unelected Senate has not just amended the federal accountability act, it has taken it hostage. Yesterday the senators sent us their outrageous ransom demands threatening to kill Bill C-2 unless we gave in. The rudderless Liberal Party is letting the Liberal Senate run amok. Who is going to rein in these rogue senators before this whole project crashes and burns?
Bob Rae has 11 Liberal senators in his pocket. Does he condone the unelected Senate undermining and sabotaging the federal accountability act? The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore has 10 Liberal senators. Does he support reform or is he trying to defend the status quo of Liberal corruption? The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville's Senate supporters say that Bill C-2 is leading to fascism. Mr. Kennedy's supporters tried to delete whole sections of the bill.
Which one of these future Liberal leaders wants to show some leadership and tell the senators to smarten up, know their place and stop sabotaging this important piece of legislation?
No. 2 Construction BattalionMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I honour the men and women whose legacy dates back to the First World War and Canada's best kept military secret, the only all black military No. 2 Construction Battalion formed on July 5, 1916. This year celebrates its 90th anniversary.
Men like Joseph Madden and James Aaron Jacobs were among the 605 men who eventually got permission to serve their country. Despite segregation and lack of basic health care, the battalion served with honour and dignity in France.
We honour their memory today by including their names in the roll call of Canadians who have served this country. On behalf of my constituents in Laval—Les Îles, I would like to thank their descendants who served in the second world war.
Former Lieutenant-Colonel Kenneth B. Jacobs, Lieutenant-Colonel Wally Peters accompanied by his daughter, Lieutenant-Colonel Shelley Carey, Mr. Robert Dorsey and Mr. Edwin Sayles.
VeteransMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today we honour all the men and women in uniform who have bravely served, both in times of war and in peace, as well as their families.
On the eve of November 11, let us remember their sacrifices and their achievements. Freedom, democracy, justice, truth and peace are some of the values for which these men and women risked their lives and, all too often, made the ultimate sacrifice.
We can easily understand why they chose to fight for peace and liberty, and we are now in an even better position to appreciate the impact of their actions on today's world.
We owe a tremendous debt to our veterans and the only way we can repay it is by never forgetting and by passing on their stories to future generations.
Foreign AffairsMr. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga—Erindale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while it appears that the Prime Minister's biggest international preoccupation is to avoid questions about his neglect of Kyoto, dozens of innocent civilians are dying on a daily basis in various parts of the world and he is not even flinching.
Women and children are dying in Gaza, students are being bombed in Sri Lanka, villages are being destroyed in Darfur, madness is rampant in Iraq and the Prime Minister has done nothing.
Is this the heavy lifting he wants Canada to perform on the international arena? Where are the so-called principles that he proclaims to champion? 
Canadians expect their government to promote calm abroad, not to exacerbate division, to facilitate negotiated peaceful resolutions, not to fuel tensions.
Canadians want their government to act for the protection of innocent civilians. I urge the Prime Minister to demonstrate real leadership and to act now.
The EnvironmentMr. Luc Harvey (Louis-Hébert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, after the Liberals failed to take any action on the environment for 13 years, with full support from the Bloc Québécois, and considering the Bloc's recent speeches on the environment, I have to wonder if the federal Bloc members wish to defend the environment or are simply seeking opportunities to play partisan politics. I question the Bloc's genuine desire to fight climate change. 
Can someone explain to me how the leader of the Bloc Québécois proposes to legislate air quality, yet he refuses to support our bill on air quality, which puts some teeth into our environmental policy?
The new Conservative government will be the first to regulate emissions, and not just impose voluntary restrictions, like the Liberals.
We are tackling a major problem. What we do not need are empty promises that simply look good. Rather, we need realistic timelines. 
It is unrealistic and illusory to think that shorter timelines will be practical and give results. The new regulations that will take effect in 2010 and the financial penalties imposed on violators are proof of the effectiveness of our commitment.
It is deplorable that the Bloc Québécois is playing partisan politics on an issue that is the most—
The Speaker: I regret that the hon. member's time has expired. 
Presence in GalleryThe Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of a number of veterans who are celebrating the 90th anniversary of the legacy of the No. 2 Construction Battalion of World War I. We have with us Mr. Robert Dorsey, Lieutenant-Colonel Kenneth Jacobs, Lieutenant-Colonel Wally Peters, Lieutenant-Colonel Shelley Carey and Edwin Sayles.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!

Oral Questions
The EnvironmentHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of the Environment leaves for Nairobi for a meeting on implementing the Kyoto protocol, she is burdened by her own pattern of deception and disinformation here in Canada.
Obsessed with partisan games and laying blame, she told Canadians that hundreds of millions of dollars had been spent by the previous government to buy international carbon credits.
The minister's officials, the environmental auditor and the news media have all confirmed that it just was not true.
Why did the Conservatives tell such a deliberate, barefaced falsehood?
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the premise of the hon. member's question. He talks about being burdened. I certainly know what the Liberal Party is burdened with.
That is the record of the Liberals over 12.2 years when they did absolutely nothing on the environmental file. I am sure they are quite embarrassed about their record on that. 
I can assure the hon. member that the hon. environment minister will do an outstanding job at home and abroad for Canada and he should celebrate that.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister also has his pants on fire. He was caught misleading the House about a memo on access to information. On Challenger aircraft, he was dead wrong. The Conservatives do not disclose the same information as their predecessors. On the agenda for the Helsinki summit, the diplomatic corps exposed his falsehood. However, he never lets the truth get in the way of a good smear.
Why did the parliamentary secretary give false information about the government's time frame on climate change, making it sound 13 years more favourable than it really is?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, again I reject the premise of the hon. member's question. If he wants to talk about what happened during those 13 years, it was absolutely nothing.
In terms of targets, I would ask the hon. member why the Liberals would sign on to the Kyoto accord when they had no intention whatsoever of meeting those targets. The proof of it is that the greenhouse gas emissions went up every single year under a Liberal administration. 
Why would the Liberals do that? Why would they sign on when they had no intention of meeting those targets?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative pattern of deceit continues. The government is following blindly the advice it got from its now discredited Republican pollster, that if one tells a big enough falsehood long enough and loud enough, one just might get away with it.
However, the Conservatives keep dragging others into their tangled web. They blame the Urban Transit Association for erroneous numbers on transportation emissions but that association contradicts the government. They blame private sector consultants for erroneous numbers on electricity costs but those consultants contradict the government.
Why can the government not just tell the truth?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the only people we blame on the environment file is the Liberal Party of Canada for doing nothing. The Liberals are the only people we blame.
As a matter of fact, when we look at the record, it is only under a Conservative administration that anything gets done on the environment. Whether it was the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or the acid rain treaty, these things get done under Conservative administrations, which is why Canadians welcome the clean air act.
Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, there is another broken promise.
The Government of Quebec adopted a plan to fight climate change, a plan praised by everyone. Everyone, except the minority Conservative government.
And here is proof of the Conservatives' lack of respect: they have reneged on the $328 million that would have permitted Quebec to respect the Kyoto protocol.
Is that how they protect the environment?
In Nairobi, with her Quebec colleague, will the minister change her position and guarantee the $328 million to fight climate change?
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, talking about money, all Canadians know that for 13 years the Liberals did nothing and they wasted $1.6 billion. 
I would ask that member to stand up right now because we have been waiting a long time for an apology for wasting money and not doing anything on the environment.
Raymonde Folco: Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, this gives me a wonderful opportunity to ask the other side of the House, in power for almost one year, when will you start governing? Furthermore, that is not the first time this minister has broken a promise made to Quebec.
On May 25, the newspaper Le Soleil reported that, after meeting with her provincial counterpart, the Minister of the Environment indicated that she was open to providing money for the plan to fight climate change being prepared by Quebec. The Government of Quebec is still waiting for this money.
Does the minister enjoy continually breaking the promises made to Quebec? Is that the way to govern Canada?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, I think what the hon. member is having problems with is that this is a government of action. This is the government that tabled the clean air act. We are moving from voluntary to mandatory. 
That member was part of a government that did nothing. Will she finally do the right thing and support a government that is a government of action on the environment?
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in an interview yesterday, the Minister of the Environment said that Canada, not Quebec, would be represented in Nairobi. Despite the fact that Quebec is recognized as a leader in environmental issues, it is being relegated to the role of bit player.
Does the government acknowledge that it missed a perfect opportunity to demonstrate the open federalism it promised Quebec on December 19 of last year—a promise that, among other things, was supposed to give Quebec a voice on the world stage? 
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to state that this government is an open government. That is why we invited Quebec's environment minister to accompany our Minister of the Environment, so that Quebec's position on this important issue could also be heard.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, they invited the minister, then turned around and muzzled him. That is just great. 
Given that the environment is a shared responsibility, that Quebec has a realistic green plan, and that we are leading Canada in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, how can the government justify muzzling Quebec like that? 
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, clearly, the Government of Quebec's objectives are not the same as the federal government's.
We know that the Government of Quebec has a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2% below 1990 levels, but everyone knows the target is 6% below those levels. That said, what really matters here is that both ministers continue to work together harmoniously, and that is what we are doing.
I would invite the Bloc Québécois to reach out and work with us to pass Canada's clean air act.
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment recognized some merit in the four-point plan presented yesterday, which provides suggestions to bolster Canada's position in Nairobi. However, the minister refused to identify which of the four points she favours and prevents Quebec from speaking, even though Quebec has some positive things to say.
Does the minister realize that it is not too late to inform us of her objectives for phase one of Kyoto and could she tell us what was of interest to her in yesterday's proposal?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, what is always interesting about these matters is that they always require a bit of background.
If Quebec has come this far in environmental matters, it is thanks to decisions made by the government of Robert Bourassa in 1970, when the supporters of separatism talked about and favoured the use of nuclear power, which, as you know, probably causes the most damage to the environment.
Quebec made some choices and today I am pleased to see that these choices are supported.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to speak to the Minister of Natural Resources who, this week, said that nuclear energy is a clean energy. Minister Béchard underscored the fact that the Canadian government is not in a hurry to advise him of its position. Consequently, the minister decided that Quebec would speak for itself in Nairobi.
By refusing to explain her plan to her Quebec counterpart is the minister not admitting that the Canadian position on the Kyoto protocol contradicts Quebec's position?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, with regard to nuclear power, my colleague should remember that, in 1970, when a choice had to be made, they had to choose between a clean and renewable form of energy and another form of energy.
As for the plan, I invite our colleagues to read the bill that has been tabled. They should follow the lead of the PQ and support the clean air bill. They should consider the option; it could be helpful.
Aboriginal AffairsCharlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, the very first step the government took toward the people of Kashechewan was to rip up a signed agreement with them.
Now, through Mr. Alan Pope, the government is making all kinds of promises to entice them to leave their territory. One of the promises Mr. Pope made was that they will be able to go home to hunt and fish on their traditional lands. There are no roads to Kashechewan, and try getting a flight out of Timmins to Kashechewan if one is poor. 
I think it does stretch credulity to think INAC will be in the business of maintaining flight service for people to go to their hunting territories.
The people of Kashechewan want to know, what kind of financial commitment will the government put on the table today to guarantee that they will have long term flights to their territories?
Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Alan Pope has brought forward an independent report and an assessment of the situation in Kashechewan. That has been something that he took into account from many members of the community with considerable consultation. It has been well received by all those who have read the report. 
We look forward to putting it in front of the people of Kashechewan and allowing them to make a decision on their future.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, continuing on, Mr. Pope said that there was no economic viability in the region. He should tell that to all the mining companies and the diamond prospectors flocking into the Mushkegowuk territory to find another billion dollar project like Victor.
I think it is really convenient to remove people from the land who have section 35 rights, rights that were guaranteed through the Delgamuukw Supreme Court decision to have an economic component.
 Is the government willing to enter into a guaranteed treaty with the people of Kashechewan that if they leave their territory they will still maintain economic rights to their traditional lands?
Rod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that it is the people of Kashechewan who will make this decision for themselves. We as a government want to allow for all first nations aboriginal people to have the liberty to choose how they would like to live their lives in the future.
Income TrustsJohn McCallum: Mr. Speaker, let us get back to broken promises, beginning with the mother of all broken promises. 
Loudly and repeatedly, the Conservatives promised they would never tax income trusts, and last week that is precisely what they did. As a consequence of this broken promise, a million Canadians, who had taken the government at its word and invested in income trusts, lost more than $20 billion.
How can Canadians believe anything the government says?
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that his own government botched this whole situation, a situation that was a real threat to the Canadian economy and, particularly, a threat to taxpayers because if corporations are not paying their fair share, then everyone suffers.
The member will know that the situation has changed dramatically in the last few months in a way that was not anticipated. The government took action. It could have preserved its own political credibility and refused to take action and hurt the country but we chose to do the right thing.
Softwood LumberMr. Don Bell (North Vancouver, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here is another broken promise. 
Before the election the Conservatives said they would demand that the U.S. government play by the rules on softwood lumber and return more than the $5 billion in illegal softwood lumber tariffs to Canadian producers. Nothing less would do. However, the agreement they signed with the U.S. did not get all of Canada's money back. They did not tell the truth. They even went so far as to leave a $1 billion tip for the U.S.
How can Canadians believe the government?
Ms. Helena Guergis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question but of course I do not agree with him. 
Our party and our government have been focused on delivering to the softwood lumber industry because it has been devastated due to the lack of attention and inability of the previous Liberal government to reach a settlement agreement that would benefit the softwood lumber industry.
What we are seeing is a return of over five billion Canadian dollars to the softwood lumber industry, which is something it will use to reinvest and keep its head above water, something the Liberal Party was unable to accomplish.
Aboriginal AffairsTina Keeper: Mr. Speaker, here is another broken promise.
During the election Canadians were duped into believing a Conservative government would honour the Kelowna accord, but that promise was broken with the Conservative budget which cancelled the $5.1 billion agreement. 
The Conservatives claimed the money was never booked, but one of its own MPs has admitted the money was there. The only way that money could have been taken off the books was by the finance minister or the Prime Minister.
Why has the government broken its promises to aboriginal Canadians?
Rod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, as we have heard quite recently, the member for LaSalle—Émard stated at committee that there was no Kelowna accord, there was no signature page and, in fact, the money was not there. There were $25 billion in promises, promises that the Liberals had no intention of keeping. Our government is moving forward with real plans for aboriginal people backed up by real dollars.
Status of WomenHon. Belinda Stronach (Newmarket—Aurora, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here is yet another broken promise by the minority Conservative government.
During the last election the Prime Minister signed a pledge to work for the equality of women, but last month the government did just the opposite. Not only did it cut 43% of the budget of the department for the Status of Women but it removed equality from the mandate of the women's program.
Why did the Prime Minister break his promise to the women of Canada?
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have to understand that if women are continually told they are not equal, they will continue to believe that. We say that everyone in Canada is equal. We recognize there are challenges and barriers. We will use taxpayers dollars to ensure that all women have equal opportunity and can participate as equal citizens.
Foreign AffairsMs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite what the Minister of Foreign Affairs says, cuts of $12 million have hurt the public diplomacy fund, with the result that the Canadian cultural centres in London and Paris have become empty shells. The minister's explanation for this is that the money earmarked for the fund has not been cut, but is being reassessed.
Is the fact that these two centres still have not received their grants not further proof that the minister has decided simply to cut the public diplomacy fund?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. Clearly, we have no intention of closing the Canadian cultural centre in Paris. Foreign tours by artists are supported mainly by the $4.7 million arts promotion program. In addition, my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, has announced that the Canada Council's budget will be increased by some $50 million over the next two years.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that, because of the uncertainty and delays around grants for the cultural centres in London and Paris, tours have been refused and some activities have been discontinued? Does he deny that?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the government has no intention of closing arts centres. We have to find a way to improve efficiency and effectiveness in every program, in every department. I know that the hon. member is interested in promoting the arts in Quebec and across the country. I encourage the member to get involved in the programs this year by suggesting ways to promote the arts.
Judicial AppointmentThierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada opposes the Minister of Justice's plans to change, without consultation, the current judicial appointment process and the membership of the selection committee.
Are the minister's true intentions not simply to give himself full discretion to appoint whomever he chooses, thus politicizing the judicial appointment process even further?
Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the judicial advisory committees provide the minister with advice on judicial appointments. We are very proud to be expanding the scope of the judicial advisory committees to include police officers, who we all agree play a very important part in our judicial system.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, in June 2005, the Bloc Québécois achieved the creation of a special committee whose mandate was to improve transparency in the judicial appointment process. The committee did not have the time, however, to complete its work. 
Instead of going ahead with these reforms surreptitiously, why does the Minister of Justice not bring back this committee, which could make impartial recommendations after consultation?
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, our government firmly believes in broadening the number of voices that we listen to for input on recommendations for potential judges. We know the Liberals in the past used judicial appointments as plum patronage positions. This will not be the approach of this government.
TaxationJohn McKay: Mr. Speaker, let us return to the party of broken promises.
In its campaign platform the Conservative Party promised to cut taxes for all Canadians, yet on July 1 Canadians received a nasty little surprise in their pay package when they noticed that the cut had turned into the hike for virtually all taxpayers as it started at the lowest bracket.
Why does the government give peanuts on one hand and take billions out of taxpayers on the other hand? What does the government have against just telling the truth?
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know what the member is talking about because our budget delivered more tax relief for Canadian taxpayers than the four previous Liberal budgets. In fact, we are delivering $20 billion in tax relief for Canadians over the next two years. The Liberals should be celebrating this instead of criticizing it.
LobbyingMr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here is yet another broken promise.
Before appointing three former lobbyists to his cabinet, including the defence minister, before giving lobbyists senior positions in the PMO and ministerial offices, and before allowing ministers' staff to leave their offices to lobby their old bosses just days later, the Prime Minister promised that he would close the revolving door between government and lobbyists.
Why did he break this promise and reinstall this revolving door at the entrance of the PMO?
Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government and the Prime Minister brought forward to Parliament, in its very first piece of legislation, the most comprehensive lobbyist reform ever brought about not just in Canada but indeed the western world. 
We want to impose a five year ban on those who work as ministerial assistants as well as senior public office holders. We want to require every single contact to be reported and made public on the Internet. These are real reforms. Canadians were tremendously disappointed at the corruption in the Liberal government.
Federal Accountability ActMr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here is yet another broken promise.
When the President of the Treasury Board tabled his hastily drafted and flaw-filled accountability act, he stated that his party would not accept donations over $1,000. He repeated that promise in the House on October 30. However, records show that the Conservatives have broken their promise by accepting donations over $1,000 on nearly 200 occasions. 
Breaking promises has become an art for the Conservatives. How can Canadians ever trust them again?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has said it wants a cap on political donations of $1,000. We agree. We wonder why those members are asking those questions. In the House of Commons committee they proposed to raise them to $3,000, and in the Liberal Senate they wanted to double them to $2,000. 
We can solve this problem very easily by making our limits on donations retroactive to April 12, the day after the bill was introduced, so that we can have genuine accountability and less Liberal corruption.
Minister of Public Works and Government ServicesHon. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here are two more broken promises by the minority Conservative Prime Minister. 
During the election the Prime Minister promised to accept only people who were elected into his cabinet and then he called for the election of senators. Yet, on his first day in office he appointed Conservative fundraiser Michael Fortier to the Senate and then to cabinet as, get this, Public Works minister.
When will the Prime Minister stop breaking promises to Canadians?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has indicated that he is going to run in the next general election and that is a promise he made to Canadians. In the meantime, he is working very hard on behalf of the people of the Montreal region, Quebec and indeed, all of Canada. He is doing an outstanding job and I am sure the hon. member will second that.
Federal Accountability ActMr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal dominated Senate's foot dragging, dithering and delay on the federal accountability act has finally come to an end. Tragically though, over 100 Liberal changes have effectively destroyed the bill, including providing for big money by doubling the $1,000 limit and increasing secrecy by adding exemptions to the Access to Information Act.
Will the President of the Treasury Board tell this House if he will rebuild the accountability act back into the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the member for Cambridge can bet his boots we are going to rebuild this act. He can bet his boots we are going to ensure that it is only $1,000 that people can donate to political parties and local candidates. He can bet his boots we are going to ensure that Liberal political staffers do not get a free pass into our neutral non-partisan public service and he can bet his boots that we are going to bring lightness where there is darkness at the Canadian Wheat Board.
Government PoliciesMrs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, like the Liberals before them, the Conservatives are proving just as bad at keeping their promises. On patronage, appointments, health care wait times, clean air, income trusts and supporting our veterans, the Conservative government has broken promise after promise in its nine short months in office.
If we cannot trust the Conservatives on promises that they made in the last election, how can we trust them to keep the promises they make in the byelection in London North Centre?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the hon. member's question. I know we have an outstanding candidate in that particular riding. She is a former mayor who has done an outstanding job. She has worked with minority groups within that community. She has brought people back together and she is going to do an excellent job on behalf of the people of London. 
The EnvironmentIrene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, it is good to see her back home from Washington. 
In 1993 the Liberals promised to cut pollution by 20%, but what did they deliver? A 27% increase. In the last election the Conservatives promised to table a law that would reduce pollution, but their so-called clean air act will actually increase pollution. All the while the air in London is getting dirtier and dirtier.
Will the government commit to support scientific based targets for greenhouse gas reductions in the short, medium and long term?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. The previous Liberal government did absolutely nothing on the environment. It is this government that, through the clean air act, will deal with greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. We would appreciate if all members, including the NDP, would deal with this very important issue.
InfrastructureMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the broken promises.
On November 30, 2005, the Conservative members from Quebec City, whom their leader was unable to name at the time, revealed their regional platform. They promised to repaint the Quebec Bridge. A year later, rust is still ravaging the structure. I want to know what the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is waiting for to deliver cans and brushes to his Quebec caucus.
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised this issue of action by the Conservative members in the Quebec City area. We have indeed resolved the Petite-Rivière-Saint-François matter thanks to the work of my colleague, the Minister of Labour. We were also able to resolve the Quebec City airport situation in a matter of a few months. We were able to resolve the issue of Quebec City's 400th anniversary. As far as the bridge is concerned, this matter will be resolved as a top priority within the first year of our mandate.
Canadian HeritageBryon Wilfert: There is another broken promise, Mr. Speaker.
 Conservatives told the Canadian Museums Association, “Please be assured that generous funding for Canada's museums would be a priority for a Conservative government”. Let me spell it out for the reality challenged minority Conservative government. Decrease is not increase. Less is not more. Tight-fisted is not generous.
Why did the Conservatives break their promise and slash $4.6 million from the museums assistance program?
Bev Oda: Mr. Speaker, as we said before, we are committed to museums. They are important to protect our heritage and our culture.
When we took over, we had art museums with leaking roofs. We had the Auditor General saying that we were losing archival material faster than we were collecting it. 
We know what our responsibilities are and we will address the needs of all museums in Canada.
Child CareMs. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here is another broken promise.
 The Conservative election platform said that its $100 monthly allowance to families would be in addition to the Canada child tax benefit, which is an income support program for low and middle income families. However, the young child supplement part of this tax benefit has been eliminated. Canadians, who were promised they would not to be hit by some backdoor money grab, are having this money snatched away from their children.
How can the government justify this broken promise?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again, the member opposite has her facts more than a little wrong. We recognize that there was the supplement for the under seven crowd. That is why we have extended that program and combined it. Now no parent will be worse off for receiving the universal child care benefit than they were before.
AgricultureHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives promised immediate cash for farmers' spring planting. No cash has been received, another broken promise. They promised to open the aged cattle market to the United States. Nothing has been accomplished. They promised dual marketing, which the minister's hand-picked task force now states, “This is not possible”. This destructive proposal alone will take $655 million out of the pockets of farmers pockets.
They are broken promises, manipulation and deception. Why can the government not just be honest with primary producers?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let us be honest. This hon. member does not have to live with the reality of Canadian agriculture.
Our government is aware of the problems. We are working hard day after day to help Canadian producers. We have the best programs currently available.
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of QuebecMs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on September 22, Boîte à Science's 100 leaders campaign gathered over 150 participants from socio-economic and political backgrounds in the Quebec region who demonstrated their commitment to creating a science and technology discovery centre. 
Can the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec tell us when he plans to announce his contribution to making this project happen?
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in answer to my hon. colleague, my colleagues discussed Boîte à science extensively during the election campaign. This file is currently going forward. Naturally, we are interested in trying to make progress on this file. We want the Government of Quebec to get involved too. When the time comes, when things have progressed further, I will share that information with the House.
Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that the time has finally come to announce the $450,000 promised during the election campaign by all of the Conservative members from the Quebec region?
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, they are asking us for a million dollars over two years. After that, they will be asking for another $30 million. 
When we consider building infrastructure like this—if that is the right term—we have to think about subsequent stages. Nevertheless, we are very interested in this issue. We are working hard and we hope to be in a position to make an announcement soon.
Government AppointmentsMr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here is another broken promise.
 In opposition, the minority Conservative government made false accusations of patronage appointments. It said that it would be as pure as the driven snow when it came to making its appointments.
 Since coming into office, we have seen one Conservative bagman after another appointed to the bench, to boards, to commissions and to advisory posts. As well, Conservative operatives and owners were given sole source contracts and other Conservative hacks were given plump pork postings both here and abroad.
When will the government stop the orgy of patronage and live up to the promise it has broken dozens of times?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the first action of the Conservative government, in bringing real change to Canada, was to introduce legislation to establish a public appointments commission to ensure that qualifications were there for people getting public appointments.
Let us look at the Liberal record: Andre Ouellet, who they had to fire as the head of Canada Post; David Dingwall, who they had to— 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Fire.
John Baird:  —as the head of the Royal Canadian Mint. This is the grand doozy. The Hon. Alfonso Gagliano was the ambassador to Denmark and what did they do to him?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Fire.
International CooperationMr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages took part in the Millennium Promise Conference, which was a huge success for its organizers and for the City of Montreal. 
Our government cares deeply about the plight of children throughout this world and is investing significantly in order to reach the millennium objectives.
Could the parliamentary secretary to the minister, my hon. colleague from Macleod, please tell us about the announcement made yesterday in Montreal by our new Conservative government?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages yesterday announced that Canada, through CIDA, would contribute $45 million over five years to UNICEF and the United Nations. This contribution will provide essential drugs and vaccines to treat children with common infections. It will also help prevent pregnancy related deaths.
Our government provides over $100 million a year, through UNICEF, for various initiatives throughout the developing world. This is another example of the government getting things done.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on the topic of aid to developing countries, two years ago Parliament unanimously passed a law to ease access to lower cost generic AIDS medicines for developing countries, confronting the ongoing tide of suffering and death. So far not a single pill has left Canada.
During the AIDS conference in Toronto, the health minister promised that the government would review the law and make it work.
Could the minister tell the House what immediate action will be taken to ensure the first pills will finally reach those who so desperately need them?
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, AIDS and HIV remain an important issue for everyone in the federal government. The health minister has been very involved in discussions to ensure the Government of Canada does the right thing for people in Canada and throughout the world.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Minister of Industry is going to review the legislation and has promised to do that. In fact, we pushed him. The NDP made an amendment to make him do that. However, the report will not be ready for another seven months. 
The industry minister has promised to meet with NGOs on this issue, but he has not met with anyone to date. He has no date set, as a matter of fact. So far, all he has done is grant an extension to pharmaceutical patents to make drugs more expensive and harder to get.
When will the minister sit down with the experts and fix the legislation so we can get drugs to the people who need them in Africa and elsewhere?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government is working very hard to fast track the review announced by the Minister of Health at the international AIDS conference in Toronto in August. That review will focus on how Canada's access to medicines regime can make it easier for drugs to get to the developing world, while continuing to respect the WTO rules and the integrity of our patent system.
Canada PostMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here is another broken promise.
When unveiling their regional election platform in Quebec, the Conservative candidates all promised to reverse the decision taken by Canada Post to close the mail sorting plant in Quebec City.
Do these members speak to their Prime Minister, or perhaps it is the Prime Minister who will not listen to them? When will the Prime Minister and his band of merry jokers from Quebec keep their word?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague, if he had carefully read the notes prepared for him, he would have seen that we promised to review that decision. That is what we did. We reviewed the decision. We made certain that everyone already employed by Canada Post and working at that location would keep their job. 
This is just another example of the many promises we made for the Quebec region, on which we have delivered and will continue to deliver.
Veterans AffairsMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country will be gathering tomorrow to pay tribute to our veterans and our men and women in uniform. It is our soldiers, our air force, our navy and our merchant mariners who have always been there to defend and protect our great country.
Could the Minister of Veterans Affairs share with the House the importance of taking time to honour our veterans?
Hon. Greg Thompson (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, just a reminder to all of us that tomorrow is Remembrance Day. We will be leaving this chamber, you, I and all members of Parliament, and going back to our largest cities and smallest villages and laying wreaths in honour of those men and women who have sacrificed so much for us.
Last week, when I was speaking in the House, in a tribute to our veterans and Remembrance Day, I reminded all of us that we only serve here because of what they did for us, the greatest democratic institution on the face of the earth. We thank them and honour them.
 I thank all members of the House for the support they have given me in recognizing our veterans and doing as much as we possibly can for them. We have some of them with us in the House today. We wish them well tomorrow. I know we will have a big turnout. I urge all Canadians to do the same.
National Capital CommissionRichard Nadeau: Mr. Speaker, after in camera National Capital Commission board meetings, now the NCC mandate review panel is also meeting in secret, away from prying eyes, as though it were a secret agency. This government preaches transparency, but it has a long way to go.
How can the government claim to be making the NCC more transparent, when it tolerates a dubious consultation process riddled with secrecy?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is mixing up apples and oranges again.
We set up a panel to review all the work of the National Capital Commission. These people have to deliberate, and they conduct consultations at the same time. In order to prepare the work and the recommendations, they need to work together. They have agreed to deliver their report by December 31. I await this report with much interest. We will make this report public. 
Government AppointmentsCharlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, the heritage minister's predilection for hitting up for cash the key industries she is charged with overseeing is not a new phenomenon.
 I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fundraiser she held in May of 2005 in the very offices of Corus Entertainment. Fern Belisle was on the board of directors of Corus at that time. He is now rumoured to have the inside track as the new head of the CRTC.
My question for the minister is this. Does passing the hat around a boardroom table constitute a fair assessment process for choosing the next head of the CRTC?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want all political parties to come together and to pass the most comprehensive election financing reform law ever presented in Canada. Canadians want the House of Commons to get rid of corporate cash, union cash and to reduce to only $1,000 what individuals can contribute to political parties. 
I thank all members of the House for their speedy passage of Bill C-2, the federal accountability act. They obviously shared my view that we had to get this important legislation in law. I hope we will continue to see that in the hours and days ahead.
Presence in GalleryThe Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Honourable John Hickey, Minister of Transportation and Works for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
Points of OrderThe Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform on October 19, 2006, concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine), standing in the name of the member for Sydney—Victoria.
 I would like to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for having raised this issue as well as the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst and the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria for their comments.
In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary pointed out that the employment insurance program currently includes a 15-week sickness benefit period to provide temporary income support to individuals who are injured or too sick to work. Bill C-278 would extend the maximum period for which such benefits may be paid from the current 15 weeks to 50 weeks. Therefore, he argued, the bill would result in increased spending of public revenues and should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.
On the other hand, the hon. members for Acadie—Bathurst and for Sydney—Victoria contended that it is the contributions of employers and employees that make up the employment insurance fund. The fund should not be considered public revenue, they argued, and therefore, no royal recommendation should be required.
I have carefully reviewed Bill C-278 in light of the interventions of the hon. members and find that by amending the Employment Insurance Act to extend sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks, the bill would require the expenditure of additional funds in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized. Although contributions to the employment insurance program are indeed made by employers and employees, appropriations for the program are taken from the consolidated revenue fund and any increase in such spending would require a royal recommendation.
I will therefore decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.
Meanwhile, however, the next time the House considers this bill, the debate will be on the motion for second reading, and that motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period I pointed out and made reference to the May 2005 fundraiser held in the offices of Corus Entertainment. I felt that in the interests of illuminating issues for members of Parliament, particularly because the CRTC appointment in January might be one of the most politically charged appointments made by the government, I would like to table the necessary documents around that fundraiser and the facts about who was on the board of directors at the corporation at the time.
 I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to table the documents surrounding Bev Oda's fundraiser with John Cassaday, Phil Lind and--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay have the unanimous consent of the House to table this document?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  No.
The Speaker:  I caution the hon. member about using the name of another hon. member even when he is reading off the document.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 11 petitions.
Committees of the HouseMr. Brian Jean (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. 
In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, April 25, 2006 your committee has considered all the votes under Transport in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007 and reports the same to the House.
PetitionsMr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to present two petitions.
The first is on behalf of the fine people of beautiful Prince Edward—Hastings and the surrounding area, who are calling upon Parliament to reopen the issue of marriage and to repeal or amend the Marriage for Civil Purposes Act in order to promote and defend marriage as the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Daryl Kramp: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have the honour to present is again on behalf of the citizens of Prince Edward—Hastings, who call upon Parliament to take all measures necessary to immediately raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.
Mr. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to table a petition signed by 63 residents of the great province of British Columbia. The petitioners call on Parliament to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and further call on Parliament to reopen the debate surrounding same sex marriage in order to repeal or amend the existing same sex marriage law.
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is rather appropriate for me to be presenting these petitions as we are discussing Bill C-27, the dangerous offender legislation. I introduce these petitions that were received by my office with respect to pedophiles and repeat sexual offenders. To date, we have received over 15,500 signatures through the petition. Signatures are coming in every day. They are from every province in the country, from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, et cetera. They show that people have compassion about this issue. The petition itself says that from time to time children are abducted by known repeat sex offenders and Canadians desire that steps be taken to prevent incidents from occurring. 
The petitioners ask that we proceed with changes to the justice system and legislation that would result in harsher penalties for convicted pedophiles, which Bill C-27 does, by mandatory, compulsory, electronic or other forms of the monitoring of pedophiles upon release from custody, ensuring compulsory public notification on movement of convicted pedophiles, and ensuring that such repeat offenders be designated as dangerous offenders. Bill C-27 is before the House. It is being debated as we speak. We would ask the opposition to join with us in putting forward some legislation that would correct many of the issues in this petition.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 106 supplementary and 108 supplementary could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 106 and 108 be made orders for returns and that they be tabled immediately?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Ms. Dawn Black: With regard to the Canadian presence in Afghanistan: (a) what is the goal of the Canadian presence in Afghanistan; (b) what is the strategy employed by the government; (c) what are the tactics that are being used; (d) who is the enemy; (e) what is the operational centre of gravity of the enemy; (f) does the government have a political strategy to attain its goal; (g) is terrorism the greatest security threat that Canada faces; (h) does the government consider that Canada is at war; (i) what is the condition that the government would consider to be “civil war”; (j) what does the government deem to be the nature of counter-insurgency warfare and does this condition exist in Afghanistan; (k) what Canadian Forces (CF) manuals deal with counter-insurgency; (l) what are the current rules of engagement for the CF in Afghanistan; (m) what has been the change in rules of engagement since Canada left Operation Enduring Freedom; (n) is the government aware of the presence of foreign fighters in Afghanistan who help the Taliban; (o) if there are foreign fighters where do they come from on the whole; (p) what is the opinion of the government regarding the security of the Afghan border with Pakistan; (q) what is the opinion of the government regarding Pakistani cooperation in achieving the objectives of the mission; (r) does the government have an opinion as to when the goals of the Canadian presence will be achieved; (s) when was the decision to deploy a combat mission to Kandahar made by the government; (t) how well are CF capabilities matched to the conditions in the southern region of Afghanistan and to counter insurgency; (u) what is the size and configuration of task forces available for use in Afghanistan through to February 2009; (v) what has been the effect of increased training throughout the forces on the capability of these task forces; (w) how has the training of new recruits been effected by the extension of the mission until 2009; (x) does the CF use dogs in combat missions; (y) what are the protocols used in relation to dogs and civilians and detainees respectively; (z) would Canadian lawyers be allowed to contact and represent detainees while they are held by CF and, if not, what legal authority or doctrine would justify this refusal; (aa) is the arrangement concerning detainees of December 18, 2005, still the current policy of the Department of National Defence following the handover of command to NATO; (bb) what reconstruction projects are underway in Kandahar province under the supervision of the CF; (cc) are there any plans to increase the size of the Provincial Reconstruction Team before 2009; (dd) what is the government position with regard to support by the government of Pakistan, particularly the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence for the Taliban; (ee) what is the length and nature of extra training that is provided for CF personnel going to Afghanistan; (ff) what is the number of enemy captured since the CF arrived in Kandahar; and (gg) has the CF engaged Al Qaeda fighters since moving to Kandahar?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Dawn Black:  With regard to the Canadian presence in Afghanistan: (a) what is the allotment of money set aside in the fiscal framework for the remainder of the mission; (b) how does the mission effect the fiscal framework; (c) what new weapons systems have been purchased, or will be purchased for the remainder of the mission; (d) was there a M777 howitzer purchased for the mission in Kandahar and, if so, what was the cost of the system; (e) does the Canadian Forces use the Excalibur ordinance system developed by Raytheon and, if so, what is the unit cost per shell of the Excalibur ordinance system; (f) what is the added cost associated with the deployment of a leopard tank squadron; and (g) what are the project names and budgets, itemized by project, for each foreign aid project that Canada is financing in Afghanistan?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Income Tax Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read for the third time and passed.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The last time the House debated Bill C-25, the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber had 14 minutes remaining.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, before handing over to other speakers for members' statements and oral question period, I was in the process of explaining the voluntary disclosure mechanism provided for in the legislation.
All things considered, the timing of that interruption turned out not to be too bad, because this mechanism is in fact at the heart of the privacy protection regime, while at the same time promoting efficiency in the work and fight against money laundering.
Let me explain how it works. The reality is that none of the data collected by FINTRAC can be accessed directly by police, the intelligence service, the secret service or other agencies. 
These agencies may, however, voluntarily disclose information. For example, someone might say they are with the RCMP and that they are investigating so and so, who is suspected of laundering money in one financial institution or another, and so on, and submit this information to FINTRAC. This centre then checks the information received against its own to determine if it has any additional information worth disclosing to the agency that made the voluntary disclosure. The procedure is pretty tight, with committees ensuring that this additional information is disclosed only if it is deemed necessary for the purposes of the investigation in question.
It is somewhat like a black box mechanism—really quite ingenious—that prevents the organizations from directly consulting the vast data base and the incredible amount of information it contains but that, at the same time, enables this information to be useful to an investigation.
Once FINTRAC has established that the information is pertinent, it is disclosed to the organization in question. However, FINTRAC will not undertake the investigation or legal proceedings. That is not its role.
Earlier this morning, we spoke of the committee's work. I was somewhat surprised and rather amused to see Liberals and Conservatives trying to capitalize on or score political points with the work of our committee.
I believe that the committee's work was useful. An amendment proposed by the Liberals was that an organization report to the committee annually. This organization did not seem to be the most appropriate one because it was under the authority of the intelligence service, with which FINTRAC is not really aligned. We supported the amendment in order to continue debate on this matter. It proved to be a good approach because the Conservatives put forward a proposal which, in my opinion, is much more interesting than the original one. It has two components. Initially, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada will be asked to report every two years on the privacy aspect of the bill. I was very pleased with this because I had placed a great deal of emphasis on this issue. We must carefully examine the privacy aspect. 
Under the law, the Privacy Commissioner already has the authority to investigate if she receives a complaint. I did not believe that was sufficient because having the right to conduct a systematic investigation every two years and having the duty to do so are not the same thing.
Indeed, in order to receive a privacy-related complaint, the individual whose rights were violated must be aware of it. Of course, if someone had illegal access to your private files, chances are you will not know about it. Thus, it becomes difficult to file a complaint. 
I believe that some work was accomplished by everyone, and the committee was able to achieve a significant result.
The committee also discussed a Liberal amendment to allow the Canada revenue agency to directly consult FINTRAC's files, in order to be more effective. I strongly opposed that amendment, because I felt it would create a major breach in privacy protection, as I explained earlier.
Why, for efficiency's sake, would we allow an organization to directly consult these files, considering that the Canada revenue agency can, like any other government agency, submit a voluntary disclosure to FINTRAC and eventually receive relevant information, if any, from FINTRAC's database? The committee agreed with me that we should not open that breach, and I was very pleased about that.
I think this is a good bill. It has been improved by the committee, and it definitely deserves to be supported by the House. The next logical step for the government would be to work on the issue of tax havens. Tax havens are places where a lot of money laundering is going on. These countries have tax and financial rules that are much more lax than ours. This is why terrorists use them to fund their activities, or simply for money laundering purposes.
By signing agreements with tax havens, we are opening a door and making the work of those people easier. The second reason to work on the tax havens issue is obviously the fiscal inequity. Major companies invest in Barbados, Bermuda or other tax havens of this kind and do not pay taxes in Canada thanks to these little manoeuvres. This makes for a lot of lost revenue for Canada.
By addressing tax havens, we would be killing two birds with one stone: we would be fighting money laundering and terrorist activity financing, and we would be broadening the tax base, and that would create greater fiscal equity among corporations. I believe that the Minister of Finance has opened the door on this matter a few times. He has done so in this House. When I spoke to him about it, he said he would review the issue. Yesterday, in committee, following a question from my Bloc Québécois colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, he also showed interest in this issue.
I am very pleased to see this openness. All that I hope for is that this openness will translate into concrete action in the short term. We have to take action in this matter. In my opinion it would be a natural extension of the bill before us today.
In closing, my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and I would be pleased to support this bill. In my opinion it demonstrates interesting progress.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the member would comment, from his experience, on what he believes are the consequences in terms of lost tax revenues for our various communities. When taxes go to these tax havens, what happens to the people at home?
[Interjection]
Thierry St-Cyr: Any time the government loses revenue to big businesses and large corporations around the world, this has an effect on the daily lives of Canadians.
For example, this means less money for the Quebec government and other provincial governments. This is really a matter of fiscal imbalance, but the fiscal imbalance is not just an abstract notion. It means less money invested in hospitals and schools.
Our entire society is robbed of revenue when the government does not receive this money. In order to provide good service to our citizens, it is important to cover the entire tax base. Every individual, every corporation and every company must contribute their fair share. 
Tax havens trigger some degree of cynicism in Canadians and undermine our tax system. People are honest, pay their taxes, work hard and hand over a large portion of their wages in taxes, and then they see businesses, companies and corporations going to Barbados to avoid paying taxes.
This triggers a great deal of cynicism and must be shut down altogether by immediate action.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into the debate today on Bill C-25 on behalf of the NDP caucus. 
I am going to draw on some of the comments made by previous NDP members in this debate earlier and during other stages of the bill. I note many of the thoughtful comments made by our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and our finance critic, the member for Winnipeg North, who analyzed the bill and added some helpful comments that I will try and summarize here.
I should note by way of introduction that the bill comes to us as one of a flurry of bills dealing with justice issues. There has been an entire suite of legislation in recent months, some of it good and some not so good. In the NDP's point of view, we believe that some of the bills go too far and some not far enough. I hope I will have time to develop this somewhat. 
We believe that aspects of Bill C-25 do not go far enough given the worthwhile goals and objectives stated in the bill. This is one of those situations where the government of the day could have exercised even more authority to solve some of these issues.
Let me start with that one point that I have introduced to explain. Should the bill pass, this would be one of the few places in the Criminal Code where the reverse onus would be contemplated and allowed. This has been controversial in other aspects. For instance, we just finished debating Bill C-9 yesterday that introduced an element of reverse onus. Should individuals be convicted for a third time of an offence from a list of serious offences, the reverse onus would be put on them to prove why they should not be designated as dangerous offenders and locked up for life.
There were howls of derision in the House because the NDP had the temerity to raise the caution that we should only venture into this notion of reverse onus with our eyes open and with due diligence. We think we were justified in that respect and we are taking political heat as a result of it. 
It was not a pleasant sight yesterday when we were debating Bill C-9. I was not proud at all of the tone of the debate that took place just because the NDP had the temerity to question the idea of “three strikes and you're out” and the idea of putting the reverse onus on individuals who are convicted to prove they are not dangerous offenders. 
Bill C-25, the bill we are addressing today, deals with a reverse onus as well. This is one case where I think the Conservative government has gone soft on crime. I cannot understand why it did not go farther. Even though those members hurled abuse at the NDP for being soft on crime yesterday because we raised a question, in a more respectful way I ask them why they could not have gone tougher on crime in this bill. I will explain what I mean.
 In the context of this flurry of crime and justice bills that we are dealing with, we have to establish the notion that crime does not pay. I would hope this would be one way to deter criminals from activities that we are trying to discourage. The prevailing wisdom and the common knowledge out there is that crime does pay. 
An awful lot of bad people are getting away with an awful lot of things and living a very good life right under the noses of our police officers and law enforcement officers whose hands are tied. They may have darn good reason to believe that somebody is enjoying these luxury goods from ill-gotten gains from the proceeds of crime, but because the burden of proof is so onerous on our police officers and on our criminal justice system, it is rare that the proceeds of crime are actually seized.
Bill C-25 does suggest that in the event of money laundering and fundraising for terrorist activities or belonging to an illegal organization, the government can in fact seize bank accounts and cash assets from individuals and apply the reverse onus. I think that is laudable.
I would point out, though, that we could have expanded this notion to include more things than just the bank accounts. In the province of Manitoba we introduced legislation. It was defeated narrowly by the two Liberal members of the Manitoba legislature who would not allow it to pass, but we introduced legislation that was very broad and very sweeping. If a person was a member of a criminal organization and was convicted of a crime, the crown prosecutor could go to a judge who could then assess the material possessions of the criminal.
Let us say the person was a member of an illegal organization like the Hell's Angels and the guy was living in a $750,000 mansion with a tricked out Escalade in the driveway, two boats and a Sea-Doo, and all the tools and jewellery et cetera, the trappings of ill-gotten gains and crime. If that individual could not prove to the judge that the toys were purchased by earnings or by some legally obtained wealth, then we in fact could seize the property. The assets would be liquidated and the proceeds would in fact be dedicated directly to law enforcement, so that we can go out and bust more criminals. I thought that was a great bill and I thought that in the bill before us we could have explored some of those notions.
I note that the private member's bill from the Bloc Québécois in the last Parliament proceeded quite a way down the road before Parliament ended and the bill died on the order paper. I think Richard Marceau was the name of the Bloc member who is no longer a member so I can use his name and give him credit. That garnered a lot of support in the House. We thought it was a good idea.
This notion of reverse onus is not foreign to the NDP nor do we oppose it out of hand, but there was derision heaped on us yesterday for raising the idea that we did not believe reverse onus should be used in Bill C-27, the “three strikes and you're out” bill. We opposed it yesterday, but that does not mean that we oppose it all the time.
Some of the legitimate concerns about Bill C-25 that were raised above and beyond that observation from my own point of view were that it would put a burden on financial institutions to monitor, track, and take note of suspicious transactions or even overt exchanges of money that may indicate illegal activity. I think this is a necessary aspect of the bill. We have to rely on the cooperation of the financial institutions to alert us when these suspicious transactions take place.
However, the burden on smaller financial institutions may be quite onerous. I have an email from the director of the largest credit union on Vancouver Island, Mr. Bob Smits. Mr. Smits noticed that we were raising issues about the bill in the House of Commons and was monitoring it carefully.
He raised a concern that in a smaller financial institution like his, the current regulations, even as they exist today regarding tracking, the FINTRAC legislation, and the financial transactions and report analysis legislation have required his small credit union to hire an enforcement officer. He estimates that the cost of compliance with the current law to be over $100,000 a year.
If we compound that burden even further and make the obligation more onerous, we have to accommodate somehow these smaller institutions who want to comply with the law, but who have served notice that they are legitimately concerned that the burden will be passed on to them. They are asking that the government pay attention to the submission made by the credit unions at committee.
I am not sure how the submission was received in committee but I did not notice any substantial amendment in that regard. The only amendment I could find in my research for my speech today was a committee stage amendment put forward by the member for Markham—Unionville. The amendment stated that SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, established by section 31, “...shall undertake a review of the operations of the centre in each financial year and shall, within three months after the end of each financial year, submit the annual report to Parliament on those operations”. 
That is just a mandatory review process, which is not unusual when we are introducing a bill of this nature. I am not sure we took into consideration the legitimate concerns of the Credit Union Central of Canada in its submission to the bill. I want to recognize today that the NDP did take note of CUCC's concerns and we tried to represent its concerns at every stage of the debate on the bill. 
One of the points I highlighted in its submission is where CUCC states that “in the absence of compelling evidence of need, Credit Union Central is concerned that the proposed legislation is largely driven by the perceived need to make Canada's AML-ATF regime formally consistent with the new international financial action task force standards, rather than in response to any substantive threat arising from loopholes in Canada's current AML-ATF regime”.
I suppose CUCC is questioning whether better enforcement in support of the existing regime may have been adequate to plug the loopholes. These are the practitioners in the field who do not want us to pass legislation unnecessarily unless we can have a demonstrated need proven to them. They also point out, and we should take note of this, that they do not necessarily accept that the need is commensurate with the level of activity contemplated in the bill.
The one thing that I do take note of and support in the bill is that the bill does include the foreign currency exchange shops. I think this is a logical extension in terms of financial institutions. 
I would also note that a lot of questionable activity can be shielded in the completely unregulated financial sector of the payday loan companies, many of which, in fact, offer this foreign exchange and foreign delivery of currency.
 As we know, a lot of money leaves Canada every year, expatriated by people who are working in Canada and sending money to other countries. When the completely unregulated payday loan sector started to explode into our communities and started sprouting up like mushrooms on every street corner, we were very concerned. However, one of the things we have not given too much thought to is that one of the services offered by these payday loan outfits is, quite often, wiring money to other countries. 
The wiring of money was normally done in a fairly regulated setting until these shops started popping up in every strip mall across the country, sometimes three, four and five of them in the same strip mall. I think we will need to pay better attention to the activity involved in that because questionable people have entered into that industry sector. When people can get 1,000% rate of return on their money, a lot of people are taking note and it is no wonder these little shops are sprouting up. 
In one sting case done by the crown prosecutor for the province of Manitoba, they found that 10,000% interest was being charged by one of these outfits. I believe that is a better rate of return than a person can get selling cocaine. There is no other activity in the country where we can get 10,000% return on an investment, other than these payday loan shops, so it is attracting all the wrong kinds of people. I would suggest that might be one place that officials may want to really look for money laundering, illegal transactions, and bring these payday lenders under tight scrutiny and tight regulation. 
 I do acknowledge that payday loan legislation is pending in this 39th Parliament, and I welcome that.
This bill deals with the legislation governing money laundering as it exists today and tries to strengthen and improve the performance of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, or FINTRAC as it is known to the practitioners in the field. 
FINTRAC, being an independent agency, does report to the  Minister of Finance. It places obligations on certain individuals and entities to keep records, to identify their clients and to report certain financial transactions.
The second concern brought to our attention by the Credit Union Central of Canada is the obligation to report activity. First, the onerous burden that may be compounded by this legislation to track activity looking for suspect transactions, but also the obligation to turn in the names of member clients, otherwise seemingly innocent transactions may cross some line where a red flag pops up on a file, the institution would have no choice other than to report that individual. It could be someone who has been a member of that credit union for 20 years. We all know that credit unions are a lot more community driven than are some of the bigger banking institutions. It could put the manager of a credit union, who is a member of the community and who might be the coach of the local hockey team, in the difficult situation of having to turn in one of the parents of the children on that hockey team because of a transaction that was possibly innocent but set off a little red flag.
There are the privacy elements here that we must take into consideration and there is the awkwardness associated with that.
Bill C-25 seeks to improve and strengthen the performance of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre. I come back to the point made by Credit Union Central that perhaps all that is needed is a more robust administration of the existing FINTRAC regime.
 It would be irresponsible to speak to this bill without taking into consideration the projected costs.
 As I see I have only two minutes left, I will restate two of the compelling arguments brought to our attention by people we trust, about Bill C-25, the Credit Union Central of Canada.
The budget for FINTRAC, as contemplated currently, is $64 million. It may be that more resources will be necessary to offset the impact of the costs of administering the further obligations under Bill C-25 for these smaller institutions. As a former activist in the credit union movement, I try to advocate on their behalf. Let us not put this added financial burden on struggling organizations that are trying to meet the financial needs of individuals in places where the banks have abandoned them.
Quite often, the credit union stuck with the tough work of providing basic financial services that the banks should have been providing if they were living up to their obligations under their charters. They have abandoned the inner cities. Credit unions have fallen in to take their place and this bill might add an unnecessary financial burden on them.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I was quite pleased to hear my hon. colleague talk about the role of the credit union movement.
Where I come from in Timmins--James Bay, my family goes back a long way with the credit union movement. The Anguses were solid members of the Worker's Co-operative, which, in those days, was called the red credit union. My grandfather, Joseph MacNeil, who broke his back in the McIntyre Mine, was the credit manager for the Consumer's Credit Union, which was known as sort of the pink credit union.
These credit unions provided service when no one else would and they kept many people from losing their homes in tough times. In our region now, I am a solid member of the Caisse populaire. I will tell all members that the Caisse populaire in northern Ontario is an essential functioning element in terms of community development.
It seems to me that governments have never paid attention to the role that groups like the Caisse are playing in small towns across the north The government listens to the big banks, to the lobbyists and to the insiders, but it does not listen to the credit unions that are on the ground, doing the work and helping people. Why does the hon. member think that is the case?
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay and I thank his ancestors who were founders and leaders in the credit union movement, doing us all a service.
We need to keep in mind that our charter banks were given the exclusive monopoly on certain very lucrative financial transactions, such as credit card transactions, in exchange for providing basic services to all Canadians wherever they are in the country and even sometimes when it is not the most profitable thing to do. 
Nobody needs to have a tag day for the banks. They are making record profits every quarter and yet they are abandoning rural Canada and the inner cities, such as this flight of capital, this vote of non-confidence. Fifteen bank branches from the five charter banks have closed in my riding in the last five years and, in the riding of my colleague from Winnipeg North, which borders my riding of Winnipeg Centre, another dozen. That is 27 bank branches.
Who is backfilling that need for financial services? It is the payday lenders, the Money Marts, the Paymax, the scourge on society. I have seen the face of evil and it is the payday loan industry in Canada and in my riding. 
The only people who can actually backfill and meet the needs of Canadians is the credit union movement. However, a person needs a fair amount of economic stability to even form a credit union or join a credit union. People should know their banking rights and they should know that the charter banks have abandoned Canadians. 
The reason we got onto credit unions, and to get back to relevancy, is that the Credit Union Central of Canada made a very passionate submission to the committee citing its reservations about Bill C-25. It stated that it may be handicapped and hog-tied with this added financial burden of meeting the terms and conditions of Bill C-25 in terms of money laundering and tracking every transaction to monitor for illegal activity.
We all want to do what we can to defeat money laundering and illegal transactions by illegal terrorist groups but let us not put the added burden on the credit unions that may hog-tie their ability to serve the needs of Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 9, Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Income Tax Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, is deemed to have been read a third time and passed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 9, 2006, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from September 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Northern Ontario), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, one of the key principles of democracy is that the vote of every citizen should hold exactly the same weight as the vote of every other citizen. This principle which was encapsulated in George Brown's famous slogan, “Representation by population”, was a foundation stone of the Confederation deal of 1867. Today we should do all that we can to prevent this principle from being watered down. 
Bill C-290 directly undermines representation by population. The bill would entrench one value for votes cast by Ontarians living north of Lake Nipissing and another value, about 20% lower, for votes cast in the rest of the province. The bill would cause this inequity to expand over time. Bill C-290 would do this by amending the Canada Elections Act so that northern Ontario would never be represented in the House of Commons by fewer than 10 MPs. Before explaining the implications of the bill, I will describe Ontario's electoral status quo. 
Northern Ontario's current population is 838,000 and it has 10 seats. The rest of the province has a population of 10,572,000 and it has 96 seats. If the principle of representation by population had been followed, the division would have been eight seats for the north and 98 seats for everyone else, but two seats that should have been allocated south of Lake Nipissing were instead placed north of the lake. 
It is mathematically impossible to overrepresent one group of voters in a province without partially disenfranchising every other voter in that province. Effectively therefore, the current distribution of Ontario ridings takes away some of the value of each voter's franchise south of Lake Nipissing and gives it to the voters to the north.
Specifically, the current seat distribution has the following consequences. One, the average population of the 10 ridings north of the lake is 83,800. Two, the population of the average riding in the rest of the province is 110,000. This is 2.2% higher than it would have been if those two extra seats had not been awarded to the north. Three, as a consequence of this, the vote of every elector living south of Lake Nipissing is worth 24% less than the vote of a northern Ontarian.
That is the status quo. By making this arrangement permanent, Bill C-290 would be almost certain to make the situation even more inequitable. If, as the bill's sponsor seems to assume, the population growth in areas south of the lake continues to outstrip growth in northern Ontario at the current rate, Bill C-290 would have the practical impact every 10 years of stripping away another 1% from the value of every vote in every riding south of Lake Nipissing, since with each redistribution, the rest of Ontario would be deprived of an additional riding which under the terms of the bill would be reserved for the north.
I suppose one could argue that systematically underweighting votes by 2% or even 3% or 4% as contemplated by the bill is a trivial matter. Perhaps it is trivial for anyone of us in so far as our vote goes, but there are 10.5 million Canadians living south of Lake Nipissing and when so many voters are even partly disenfranchised, it is simply undemocratic and it is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, if you are planning on overturning one of the foundation stones of democracy, it behooves you to have powerful reasons. I confess that I do not find the arguments presented thus far in defence of Bill C-290 to be particularly compelling. As far as I can tell, Bill C-290 appears to be based on three premises. I will list each of them in turn, pointing out my reservations as I go.
The first premise behind the bill seems to be that the primary function of a member of Parliament is to be a local service provider and solver of constituency problems with the logical consequence that voting in the House of Commons on behalf of constituents is a secondary role. After all, if the primary role of MPs is to provide equitable representation for the people of Canada in this place, it becomes impossible to justify such anomalies as the existence since the last redistribution of one Ontario riding, Kenora, which in order to compensate for its very large geographical size, has been assigned boundaries that give it a population 40% smaller than the provincial average.
In the first hour of debate the member for Kenora was one of the most eloquent defenders of Bill C-290. A glance at Hansard reveals that he and the bill's sponsor spoke at length about the challenges of geography but not a word about the merits of having all votes within Ontario be of equal value.
I take very seriously my own role as a service provider in my riding, but it is my view that if it were possible to provide a better level of service to my own constituents at the cost of imposing permanent partial disenfranchisement on the voters of the rest of Ontario, this would not be a justifiable trade-off.
It goes without saying that I do not support the first premise behind Bill C-290. Even if I did, the bill would still not be intellectually defensible unless I were also to subscribe to a second premise. 
This premise holds that in very sparsely populated regions where ridings are necessarily very large, a substantially better level of MP service to constituents can be provided when the population of the riding is reduced by 20% or 30%. After all, if the problems of service provision are not resolved by putting a few extra MPs on the ground in northern Ontario, there is no value in giving extra ridings to the region.
I do not agree with this premise any more than I did with the first one, but I will take a moment to review some of the words presented in favour of this premise during the first hour of debate before stating my objections. 
The member for Kenora was quite explicit that this was his reason for endorsing the bill. He said that northern Ontario is “a massive chunk of land and deserves to have MPs serving it. It has 10 right now and it needs to remain at that”. The member then went on to point out that Kenora is not only the largest riding in Ontario, it is also the eighth largest in the country. 
He described some of the practical difficulties involved in servicing the more remote parts of his riding. He pointed out that the communities are far apart and in particular that 21 of them can be reached only by air. I would like to focus on this particular point for a moment because I believe that it reveals what is wrong with the premise that more MPs would lead to better service. I will start by quoting the member verbatim. He said:
 [Kenora has] 21 fly-in communities.... [T]here are rules in the House of Parliament where we can only travel for four days in our ridings. For me to go to those communities, it takes 21 days straight. I have to go home continually because I have to start the four day cycle again. If we took the population ratio that we try to use now [for the rest of the province], I would probably have 50 or 60 [fly-in communities]. How could anyone possibly service that? 
The member raised a good point. It may be the case that rules that forbid an MP to travel for more than four days in his riding and charge the expense to the member's office budget should be re-examined. However, the member's assertion that he would have 50 fly-in communities if the population of the riding of Kenora were increased is simply incorrect. 
Prior to the last redistribution, the predecessor riding to Kenora was considerably more populous because it included the Rainy River district. But in relative terms, this area was heavily populated so it added only 5% to the area of the riding and had no fly-in communities. This perhaps is why Bob Nault, the MP for the old riding of Kenora--Rainy River, so strenuously opposed the creation of the smaller new riding that now exists. He told a committee of the House of Commons:
 [The argument is made that Kenora--Rainy River] is too large for the Member of Parliament to service it. I take exception to that, of course. I've been its member for 15 years, and I think we do a pretty good job of managing our way around the riding.... [Red Lake is] basically the end of the road, and from here on up are totally isolated first nation communities. The only way you can get there is by air and/or winter road. So [the southern part] is basically the part I drive to in the summertime-- 
From Mr. Nault's comments we learn that the successful servicing of a large riding requires good management skills. He made reference to the winter roads that let him get to some of the less remote fly-in communities. He indicated that he serviced the non-remote parts of his riding by driving around in the same manner as any other MP.
I know from personal experience that it really is difficult to service a widely spread riding. It takes over two hours to drive from one end of my riding to the other. Here is how we handle things and any MP can do the same thing: One, we rented two offices at two ends of the riding; two, one of my office managers, John Campsall, holds regular mobile constituency offices at community halls in more remote areas; and three, we set up a 1-800 number so that constituents can call us from anywhere without paying long distance fees. 
I mention all of this to make the point that all of the problems that are represented as being unique to northern Ontario are in fact endemic to all large ridings and in some cases, are worse in genuinely rural ridings with no large centres than in large wilderness ridings with one or two large centres. The largest centre of population in my riding has a population of less than 10,000. By contrast, in Kenora the largest centre has a population of 16,000.
The solution to this problem and to the unique problem of remote communities which is a problem in northern Ontario is not to guarantee a minimum number of MPs to any region, but rather to examine whether the supplemental budget provided by the House of Commons for MPs with large ridings is too small. Currently this amount sits at $35,000 for Kenora and about $250,000 for all of northern Ontario.
The upshot of this is I do not think that premise one or premise two hold water, but even if we subscribed to both, that would only provide justification for a bill for making large rural ridings less populous than geographically compact urban ridings. It would not provide justification for the present bill which seeks to make all northern ridings, including that of the bill's sponsor, the riding of Sudbury, which is one-tenth the size of my riding, less populous.
If we want to get involved in making rural ridings larger, frankly I do not think it is justifiable, but that would involve a different bill and the defeat of this bill. As I have said before, I do not believe that it is appropriate to sacrifice one of the cornerstones of democracy on the altar of better constituent services. That can be dealt with by other means, as I have outlined in my remarks.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about the Act to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Northern Ontario).
I would like to start by saying that we will vote against this bill, because we believe that every voter has one vote and that this bill would change that. This is unacceptable to us.
As I said previously, the principle is one person, one vote. I think that the member who introduced this bill, the member for Sudbury, has a problem in her region, and we understand that. We also have a problem in Quebec. When the commission did its work, we lost two ridings for the 2004 election, one in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the other on the North Shore, because of population migration to larger centres. We no longer had four, but three ridings in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.
This causes problems, obviously. We went through it, and we are living with the consequences on the parliamentary and human levels, because we lost a member and this is causing a problem in those areas. Obviously, everyone would like to be re-elected, but that is the situation we are faced with.
There is another issue I would like to talk about, because it is important and my colleague did not mention it earlier. We have a mechanism that works and is fairly flexible. It is a system of representation that provides for reviewing the process and readjusting electoral boundaries every 10 years.
I have been in Parliament for 13 years, but every 10 years a census takes place and the electoral boundaries are readjusted. A commission is formed for each province, a judge is appointed and commissioners tour all the ridings to hear what the people and the members think should happen.
There are criteria to be met with regard to population density and the area of the riding. In my own case, I had a riding known as Laurentides, which I think was one of the largest ridings in Canada. It included about 80 municipalities, and I represented it for 10 years. Major changes had to be made because of population growth in the southern part of my riding. It was therefore divided up.
In some regions, ridings were removed, while in others, like mine—the Laurentians, Laval and Lanaudière—population growth has led to the creation of new ridings, such as Rivière-du-Nord. Rivière-du-Nord, which covers one RCM, covers a lot less territory than Laurentides, but a new riding was created, so there is now a new member for that riding.
When the commissioner visited our region, I had the opportunity to make representations. In fact, anyone who wanted to submit a brief could do so. We had 30 days to meet with the commissioners and provide feedback. I felt it made sense to redraw the boundaries. The riding had so many people that it was difficult to represent given the population density. So we broke it into two ridings, which made it much easier to get the work done. And we got a new member of Parliament for the region.
Obviously, other regions have problems too. Some populations are growing and others are shrinking, which means that in some areas, there are geographically huge ridings. One of our colleagues from the North Shore is dealing with just such a situation. Nevertheless, the criteria for making representations to the commission are fairly flexible. The commission has offices in every province. I would therefore invite my colleague from Sudbury to make representations.
This also enables us to make representations about how to name our ridings. It is important for names to represent the ridings, so we had the right to change the riding names if necessary.
I personally did so. Rivière-du-Nord is the full name of the RCM. The name was quite appropriate especially since Rivière du Nord flows through my entire riding.
Representations may be made to the commission. There is that flexibility. In some regions, important representations have led to significant changes. These representations were made by MPs or by means of submissions.
The redistributions do not always follow the lay of the land. They are made by public servants. I am not saying that they are not doing a good job, but they have to take into account all the ridings. In our ridings, there are a certain ways of looking at things and we know very well that it will not work to put such and such a municipality with another one and that it makes no sense to make certain changes.
So we can make our representations, and then the commission makes a decision. We have an important role to play when commissioners visit our regions, and I think they listen to us. At least, they did in our case. Even among colleagues, we had problems. Some of our colleagues wanted to keep some municipalities in their ridings, but in the end, we reached an agreement.
I think the member for Sudbury is having the same problems we had in Quebec, because we, too, lost ridings. She will have an opportunity to make representations in a few years the next time the commission convenes. I am sure she, too, will see major changes in her riding. There is bound to be growth and decline. In my riding, the population grew so fast that decisions had to be made. 
I would therefore invite my colleague to make representations to the commission, which will convene during the next census, rather than try to change electoral boundaries here with this bill. 
I should add that this would be unfair to the other provinces and Quebec because we would be solving problems in Ontario, but not in other provinces, such as Quebec and, I imagine, British Columbia and Alberta.
The process has to be fair for everyone, and I am not seeing that in this bill. My colleague had a good idea, but she knows perfectly well that our system is already pretty flexible, and that we have the right to make important representations to bring about necessary changes during electoral boundary redistributions.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill because the issue of boundaries has had a profound impact on the region of northern Ontario.
My own riding was taken out in the last redistribution. Arbitrary lines were drawn on the map which divided up rural regions that had long been a homogenous whole and a patchwork of ridings were created instead. This was done with no input from the people in the north. I am very aware of the sense of disenfranchisement that exists among people in the north.
What disturbs me when we discuss this issue is to hear members of other parties stand up and say all votes should be equal and everything should be fair. The reality is that all votes are not equal and have never been equal. In ridings in northern Ontario the average population is about 85,000 to 90,000 people. The average population of a riding in Saskatchewan is 69,000 people. We need to apply the same standard to northern Ontario as that applied to Saskatchewan. Let us apply that to Yukon where there are 35,000 people per seat. Why is it that Prince Edward Island has four seats? Is that 25,000 people per seat? These were guaranteed seats and I do not object to that. My colleague from the Bloc is of course opposing this bill as I expected she would. I am surprised in some ways because Quebec has also been guaranteed a certain number of seats.
The problem in Ontario is the major dislocation between the needs of the rural north and the needs of the urban north. One of the fundamental principles of democracy is the availability of a member of Parliament to his or her constituents. I lived in Toronto for awhile. I could walk 15 minutes one way to an MP's office and 15 minutes the other way to another MP's office. The riding of Timmins--James Bay is larger than the United Kingdom. I have gone into parts of my riding that no other member of Parliament has gone into before. 
Talking about disenfranchisement, we just need to look at the James Bay coast where upward of 30% of the population does not have birth certificates. They do not have SIN numbers. They are not even on the map. They live in terrible conditions. I am talking about places like Kashechewan, Attawapiskat and Fort Albany. Health Canada has never provided proper health services to these communities. It just has a MASH unit available. 
If a child gets sick and has to be flown out and that child does not have a birth certificate, the cost is charged to the regional health authority. The regional health authority in James Bay is swimming in debt because the federal government will not accept the fact that so many people who live on that land even exist. A major deficit has occurred in terms of health and education dollars. 
Some may ask why these people do not have birth certificates and other documentation. The federal and provincial governments have written these people off. Their officials never go there. Our office is there all the time. We are the ones filling out the birth certificates and the other forms. A member said we should get a little more organized and do what is done in southern Ontario. We run five offices out of our region and our staff are on the road all the time. 
 This is not just about constituency service. This is about political service as well. I sit in the House and listen to members talking about how unfair it is that Saskatchewan does not get to keep 100% of its non-renewable resources. I hear about the need for Newfoundland to maintain rights to its non-renewable resources. Northern Ontario is entirely dependent on non-renewable resources and none of that money has ever gone back to the region. 
Kirkland Lake is a struggling gold mine community. In the 1930s right up until the 1960s, Kirkland Lake was keeping the economy of Ontario alive. None of that money went back to the community. Across the border in Rouyn-Noranda and Val-d'Or there are communities that created one-quarter of the wealth that northern Ontario created and they have proper cities with proper infrastructure. 
There have been years of neglect in the resource-based communities of northern Ontario. We need to ensure that a fair system is in place similar to southern Ontario. We need to ensure that when these other communities expand and prosper that their prosperity is not at the expense of communities in northern Ontario that are stretched out over a vast area. These communities face major infrastructure problems, major economic problems, and have massive youth out-migration.
We need to maintain a strong political voice for those people. It is only fair. That is what we have in other parts of Canada. We are not asking to go down to 68,000 or 69,000 population size type seats that we see in Nova Scotia. No, we will live with our 85,000 plus that we have in northern Ontario. 
The city of Sudbury, which has a bigger population base than Prince Edward Island, has the same amount of political representation as P.E.I. We recognize that we will do without, but I find it absolutely astounding that members from southern Ontario stand in the House and say that by allowing the people of northern Ontario to have the same fair voice as rural regions and the rest of the country, it is somehow disenfranchising 905 and is somehow ripping off people in Markham by preventing them from having their elected representative in the House. It just does not make sense.
It does not make sense when there is a need to have voices articulating the issues of rural based people, people living in forest and mining economies who understand the issues of northern Ontario. We have a right to be heard in the House the same way that people in Yukon, Prince Edward Island and Quebec have a right to representation, and the same way the rural regions and the rest of the country are given that clear exemption.
We are not asking to go down to their levels of 69,000, 35,000 or 25,000 persons per constituency. We are willing to accept what we have, but we are saying if southern Ontario continues to grow at an unchecked rate, it should not be coming on the backs of communities like Red Rock, Iroquois Falls, Sudbury and Timmins.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-290. I had an opportunity to review the argument given during the first hour of debate. I have listened today to the representations of the other three parties. I am not sure whether there is a consensus in the House as to what the intent of the bill is, what the basic principle is.
I think the bill calls out and says that as our population redistributes province by province, every region in the country, and that the per cent of population in our remote regions continues to remain flat or go down, whereas we have a higher concentration in urban centres. This means that not only the geographic size of a particular constituency or riding continues to grow, but there are consequences to the quality of representation that the people who live within the constituency can get as it continues to grow.
There are ridings in Canada that take five hours to fly across. There are constituencies that have 25 or 30 different communities of distinct interest. There are constituencies that have never seen a member of Parliament.
Canada is a very diverse country. In fact, some people out there do not think they are even Canadians any more. No one is talking about their issues. Rural and remote regions of Canada, ostensibly represent the resource industry.
When we think of rural versus urban issues, they are becoming more and more of concern to Canadians. Rural and resource areas, the remote regions of Canada, are getting less attention on the agenda of Parliament, less attention in the laws of Canada and less attention in the investment in their infrastructure and in the services. I think in northern Ontario there is only one passport office. Someone may have to travel a hundred kilometres to the nearest spot to get a passport.
When we think about the growing size of the geography of a riding, where there is a dispersion of population, all Canadians equal to representation and access are not getting it. In fact, the accessibility to services is not there, whether it be health care, social services, education or other needs that all Canadians wish to share with each other. They are not equally accessible.
When those services are not readily available through infrastructure that the Government of Canada has put in all of these communities, people use the member of Parliament as the only person who can help them with their issues, which normally would go through a Government of Canada office. It means the member of Parliament in a rural or remote area of Canada is doing the job that urban members of Parliament, such as myself, take for granted and are done by these other agencies that are available. 
Communities in our country are still on party lines. They do not have dedicated phone lines. They do not have access to Internet. They do not have cell networks. Most of our work in urban Canada utilizes those new technologies. Those are not available. Are those people who live in these areas, and not only northern Ontario, but any rural or remote area of Canada, not entitled to the same accessibility for services to which Canadians in urban centres are entitled? How do we get the equity here?
I understand the representations that have been made about representation by population. Because of the constitutional guarantees for provinces, and I will not mention a province because I do not want to pit province against province. nine out of ten provinces are guaranteed a minimum number of seats. Only Ontario does not have a minimum number of seats for representation in Parliament.
In fact, the province of Ontario in 2005 passed legislation to guarantee, I believe, 11 seats for northern Ontario. It has legislation in place because it recognizes the importance of having a voice at the table, not necessarily proportionate to the number of people in that region, representing the interests of that region. 
Representation by population is an important aspect. It is not, however, the current situation in Canada. It is not, in fact, reflective of the current democracy in Canada. 
 I appeal to the government and I appeal to the Bloc Québécois as well to let us look at this bill, not solely from the perspective of northern Ontario but from the perspective of representative democracy, both at election time and in terms of the accessibility of the services that all Canadians should enjoy.
I think we should consider that the principle of this bill is not that it is a northern Ontario bill. It is a Canada bill. It is a Canada bill on behalf of every rural and remote area of Canada, to make sure that as we move down the line, as we get this distribution of population into urban and suburban centres and the percentage of population in rural and remote areas continues to go down, the issues and the contributions that population makes are not diminished in some way simply because there are not that many people.
As a matter of fact, as the technology changes, the numbers of people in agriculture and in natural resource development and delivery are going to go down because we are going to be able to do it more efficiently and meet our needs with less people. Towns are going to disappear.
I do not know how long that is going to take, but we need to keep Canadians connected. The only way to keep Canadians connected is basically through the services that are provided. If, because of population, those services are not being provided by the Government of Canada through offices within reasonable areas, that representation can only be provided by a member of Parliament. That is why we need to have some careful consideration of whether or not the representation of people of Canada in rural and remote areas is equitable. Their voices have to be heard.
 I believe that this bill gives us an opportunity to discuss it. I do not think it matters whether the bill passes in terms of becoming legislation in Canada. What does matter, however, is that the points that have been made are important points that should be taken to committee, so that the committee can determine whether or not we are facing a problem or whether there are some remedial steps that can be taken to make absolutely sure that the true representation of all Canadians is respected.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have listened carefully. The argument of representation by population is one that I have heard many times, but the reality is that we do not have absolute representation by population now. The quotient is determined by the number of ridings and the population in the province. Ontario's quotient is 107,000 and something. The average quotient for all other provinces is about 60,000. What I am saying is that there is no absolute representation by population.
At what point do we allow the regions of the country to deteriorate in such a manner so that they have no voice? I am asking that members send this bill to committee so we can have a discussion about how we treat not only northern Ontario, but all the others.
Quebec also has a challenge to tackle. The northern part of Quebec is also facing problems. I think these are similar to the problems faced by Ontario. 
To what extent should the importance of our francophone communities in Northern Ontario and our cultural communities be diminished? If there is no need for 10 ridings in the north, let us talk about it. Following the last redistribution, a committee recommended that a study be conducted. So, let us conduct a study before cutting ridings in northern Ontario, or let us at least talk about it. It does not take anything away from anyone.
I am asking for the hon. members' support so that the bill can be referred to committee. We could have a good discussion and perhaps recognize the great challenges faced by some regions of this country.
 I ask members to send the bill to committee. Let us have an honest, open discussion about the challenges faced by rural and remote communities, not only in Ontario, because the problem is also in Quebec and in B.C., and it may well be in Alberta as well. I am not as familiar with those provinces as I am with Ontario.
 I will tell members now that we must make a decision at one point about what is fair. I think this is the time to have that discussion. I ask members to please support this piece of legislation.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 22 immediately before the time provided for private members' business. 
 It being 1:25 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, November 20, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:26 p.m.)